Sitting of 22 June 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went;—and, having returned;—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (See page 465.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into,, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:— Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]; Truro Gas Bill [Lords]; Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [Lords]; Portsmouth Water Bill [Lords]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]; Dover Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [Lords]; Channel Ferry Rail-
  494
  way and Quay Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Hull Joint Dock [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Water Provisional Order Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  South Lincolnshire Water Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in pursuance of Standing Order 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the South Lincolnshire Water Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Mr. MOONEYreported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  Bridgewater Canals Bill [Lords]. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
  Mr. OSMOND WILLIAMSreported from the Committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Hampstead Garden Suburb Bill; Clacton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [Lords]; Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [Lords]; Railway Clearing System (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Brinksway; Keighley; Stewkley; and, West Hampstead; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Cambridge; Hatfield; Wokingham; and, Wrabness; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, against; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: from Cerne; Swansea; and, Wells; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Greenock against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Llandaff, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY BILL.
  Petition from Loughborough, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration: from Abercromby; Altrincham; Aylesbury (two); Bradford; Bristol; East Toxteth;
  496
  Glamorganshire; Liverpool; North Ayrshire; Pontypridd; Sheffield (two); Swansea (two); and, Wolverhampton; to lie upon the Table.

  AUSTRALIA.
  Copy presented, of Report of the1 Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill of the Australian Commonwealth, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports Annual Series, No-3648 and 3649 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to he printed. [No. 209.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Grants to Universities — Terms of Reference to Permanent Treasury Committee.
  DR. COOPER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what were the terms of reference to the permanent committee of five, appointed by the Treasury last March, in connection with the distribution of £100,000 per annum among the institutions of university rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Committee referred to was appointed to advise the Treasury as to the distribution of the grant in aid of colleges-furnishing education of a university; standard, and it will be their duty to make such inquiries into the work done-by the colleges and their financial resources as may be necessary to enable them to discharge this advisory function The principles of distribution are laid down in the Treasury Minute of July 18th, 1905 [Cd. 2621].

  Charge on Poor Bates of Disabled Sailors and Marines — Suggested refund by the Admiralty.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will move the Admiralty to take upon itself charges incurred by boards of guardians on account of sailors and marines who have been disabled in His Majesty's service.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have reserved representations on this subject from boards of guardians, and I have communicated with the Admiralty with regard to them. The Admiralty state that the Regulations governing the award of naval pensions provide for the grant of a pension varying from 6d. to 2s. a day, with additional allowance in respect of time served as petty officer and of good conduct badges, &c, in every case in which a man's permanent incapacity can be regarded as directly attributable to the service. The Admiralty also state that men who are invalided from ordinary causes not attributable to though contracted in the service, are awarded pensions for life, or for a limited period, according to the length, nature, and character of their service. The Admiralty further state that special pensions are also awarded in certain cases, from the charitable funds of Greenwich Hospital, to seamen and marines of good character who have been discharged from His Majesty's service, and are permanently or temporarily unable to maintain themselves; but under the Regulations governing the Charity payment cannot be made for any period during which the recipient is an inmate of a workhouse or asylum or is otherwise chargeable to the rates. I have issued a circular to boards of guardians, giving the effect of the reply of the Admiralty.

  Pensions of Quartermaster with rank of Major.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a Royal Warrant was issued in 1903 granting quartermasters the rank of major after 15 years' service, but owing, presumably, to an oversight, no corresponding increase was made in the amount of their pensions, he will take the necessary steps to provide them with
  498
  pensions corresponding with the rank at which they retire; and, in the event of such provision being made, will the cases of those quartermasters who attained the rank of major subsequent to the Royal Warrant of 1903 and have already retired, be treated on equal terms with those who may become entitled to pensions in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The retired pay of quartermasters is dependent upon length of service, not rank, and the step of honorary rank given in 1903 did not, and was not intended to, affect their retired pay.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and. to be printed. [Bill 267].

LAND TENURE BILL.
As Amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid his object in moving the new clause of which he had given notice was to safeguard arrangements which he believed to be for the mutual convenience both of landlords and of tenants. It was a matter of general knowledge that at the commencement of any tenancy arrangements were made between landlord and tenant as to the ordinary repairs of the premises, etc., and if by reason of the passing of this Act these existing arrangements were upset-it must work to the inconvenience of both parties and to the advantage of no one-It would be wise, therefore, to make provision that existing arrangements should stand good. The clause referred only to ordinary repairs. The arrangements varied in different parts of the country, and hence the necessity for this clause.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBTin seconding the clause, insisted on the importance-of including some such provision in the Bill. There were certain places in England and Scotland where the terms of the

499
agreements as regarded the letting of lands varied very greatly,, and when he raised this question upstairs several hon. Members objected to any alteration with regard to the question of repairs, as it was not the custom in their parts of the country for the tenant to contract himself to do any repairs. His own experience, however, was very different, for he well knew that before a tenant signed an agreement or lease he covenanted to do certain repairs. It was most essential that the small repairs referred to in this proposed clause should be done by the tenant, as nothing was more necessary to the proper cultivation of a farm than that the ditches should be adequately dug out and that the outfalls of drains should be properly cleaned. He had known thousands of pounds expended on the drainage of the land rendered absolately useless owing to the fact that the tenant had not cleaned out the outfalls of the drains. In most of the agreements with which he had had to deal the tenant had undertaken the responsibility for these repairs, and in his opinion, unless they put into the Bill some such explanatory clause as that now proposed, when the measure came to be put in force enormous difficulties would arise in connection with the interpretation of Clause 7. All those matters, the repairs of roads bridges, etc., he maintained, if the tenant had covenanted to do them, he should be bound to do them. They were not to form the subject of compensation. If they formed the subject of compensation it would mean the alteration of every tenancy and lease which at present existed where the tenant had bound himself to do these small repairs. Under these circumstances there should be some such clause as had been proposed by the right hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire.
New clause—
"Nothing in this Act shall affect existing arrangements between landlord and tenant as to ordinary repairs to premises, gates, fences, drains, or ditches, whether established by agreement or by the custom of the country." (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
Brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. SOARESsaid as they were anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite so far as possible they would accept this clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he hoped the hon. Member would also accept the new clause he now desired to move. It had the support of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which represented all the agricultural societies of Scotland. The clause was substantially the same as that moved by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire in Committee, and the reason for its incorporation in the Bill would be much stronger in the future than it had been in the past, because under Clause 5 of this Bill a new form of compensation—compensation for disturbance—was given which might fall upon the incoming tenant. It was in the interest of agriculture that the incoming tenant should have his capital free for investment in the profitable cultivation of the farm, and if the burden of the incoming tenant was piled up by his having to pay not only the old forms of compensation which already existed but also the new forms of compensation provided under the Bill, including compensation for disturbance to the out-going tenant, it would be a burden he would be unable to bear. The owner, who was the man upon the land, was the person to settle with the outgoing tenant. The cost of arbitration would also be greatly increased under the Bill, especially by Clause 5, and those costs would also be put on the incoming tenant, who would be thus deprived of much capital which ought to be employed on the cultivation of the land. He begged to move.
MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)seconded the clause on behalf of the agriculturalists of the midland counties of England. Many of his strongest agricultural supporters had again and again represented to him the

501
loss sustained by the incoming tenant in this way: "He paid for the improvements in the rent, which was charged at the full current value, and also had to pay once for the improvements on paying the compensation of the outgoing tenant." The principle was one that ought to be embodied in the Bill.
New Clause—
"It shall not be lawful for a landlord to bind an incoming tenant to settle the claim of the outgoing tenant for compensation for improvements?—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he quite understood the point of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and his desire to see the incoming tenants' capital preserved intact for the purposes of husbandry. But the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that the incoming tenant was a free agent; that he was not obliged to come in unless he liked. Under this Bill they were simply piling up the compensation to be paid by the landlord. However much they disliked the landlord, he thought it was very hard that he should not be allowed to make such arrangements as that described by the hon. Member. Under this Bill they wished to mulct him in the cost of compensation for disturbance and every sort of compensation it was possible to conceive. He did not see that the good done to husbandry would be so great as was suggested by the hon. Member, because the tenant was just as well able to protect himself as was the landlord. He opposed the clause.
LORD HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said the proposed clause would go a long way to prove the truth of the contention that they were going too far in the direction of giving compensation for improvements to the outgoing tenant. The wording of the Amendment showed that those who supported it thought so themselves, because, instead of going the right way to work to stop the burden on the in-
502
coming tenant, they transferred the burden, which they admitted was an unfair one, from the incoming tenant to the landlord. The most natural, cheapest, and simplest arrangement was one whereby the incoming tenant arranged to take over the unexhausted improvements from the outgoing tenant. If they substituted this clause for the existing conditions—under which it was optional for an arrangement to be made directly between the outgoing and incoming tenants—there would be a much more expensive deal to arrange in handing over a farm from one tenant to another. In the first place, instead of having a simple arbitration between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant, with the landlord standing apart altogether, they would have an arbitration as between the outgoing tenant and the landlord and secondly between the incoming tenant and the landlord. The two arbitrations meant double the cost and probably would be less satisfactory in the end. Why, when an arrangement had to be made for the benefit of the incoming tenant, should he not be allowed to make the best arrangement he could with the outgoing tenant? By this clause they would be adding to the burden of the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant and the landlord and would do no good to anybody.
CAPTAIN BALFOURsaid that from the Scottish point of view there were many provisions in this Bill with which they, as landlords, might agree, and with others disagree. There were two kinds of improvements, one of a less and one of a more permanent character which might be a benefit to the landlord by enabling him to secure a better rent for the farm when the time for letting came. When a tenant left his farm the ordinary rule was that the incoming tenant took over the manure left by the outgoing tenant. Did the hon. Member wish to prevent the incoming tenant making a bargain with the outgoing tenant with regard to the manure? If he did many leases in Scotland would be affected thereby. Then in the greater part of Scotland the incoming tenant took over the way going crop; he bought it from the outgoing tenant—a very fair

503
arrangement. If the hon. Member excluded the taking over of the manure which the former tenant left on the farm and the taking over of the way going crop this clause was of a very far-reaching character. If he did not exclude those matters then he thought the clause was a wise one. He would like to have some clearing up of these points before proceeding further.
MR. SOARESagreed with what had been said in favour of the clause, but said there was the fact to be considered that they could not have everything in one Bill. He wished they could include a great deal more in the Bill, but time was limited, and they could not have everything they desired. Having regard to that fact, he would appeal to his hon. friend to withdraw the clause and allow the discussion on the Bill to proceed.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON,in deference to the wishes of his hon. friend, asked leave to withdraw the clause.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the clause be withdrawn? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he wanted to make a few observations on the clause. The Bill was not one to promote and encourage agriculture, but it was a Bill to take something away from the landlords. He was glad to think that every hon. Member opposite did not hold that view.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to review the whole Bill.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman in introducing the Amendment showed that the best thing he could have done was to have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said he rose to make an appeal. His hon. friends behind him did not quite realise the situation when the hon. Gentleman for Leith Burghs asked leave to withdraw the clause. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill suggested with great wisdom and perfect fairness to all concerned that the clause
504
should be withdrawn. That was the object obviously that his hon. friends behind him had in view, and he would ask them to agree to the request to-allow the withdrawal of the clause.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HICKS BEACHmoved a new clause to provide that the Act should come into operation on January 1st, 1908. If the Bill passed in its present form the whole system of land tenure would undergo a complete change, and it was only fair that landlords should have time to review their position, and consider what steps they should take to secure their rights before the Bill came into force. Under the Bill as it stood the landlords would find that they had practically lost complete control over their own property. No arbitrator would be able to say what was reasonable or unreasonable, and there would be endless disputes. Besides that, the landlord would find that his own property might have undergone a complete change-without his being able to say anything at all about it, for under Clause 7 the tenant had only to say that he wished to lay down part of his farm to permanent pasture, another part to orchard—100 acres to strawberries and 100 acres to asparagus, and so on—and however much the landlord might object to his property being transformed in this way it would be impossible for him to take any steps to prevent it. Moreover, there were landlords who took a great interest in farming and kept very good stock, some of the best herds of cattle, flocks of sheep, and pigs being owned by landlords, who had given a great impetus to the breeding of stock. Under the Bill as it stood, however, it would be impossible for any landlord in the future to take any of his land in hand to farm it for himself unless he gave compensation to the sitting tenant. It was an absolute attack on the rights of property. Then there was the question of making further provision for allotments and small holdings throughout the country. He believed many hon. Gentlemen opposite were very favourable to the idea of further increasing the number

505
of small holdings, and providing greater facilities for allotments. Would it be unreasonable for a landlord to give notice to his tenant because he wished to divide some of his property into small holdings? It was quite a new doctrine that landlords were to have no consideration at all. He was always led to believe that Members of this House, when they considered a measure, were impartial enough to hear both sides. It must be remembered, too, that land in this country was not held entirely by large land-owners, and any attack that was made upon their fights would also be made upon the small landowners who formed a very large class. He begged to move.
LORD TURNOURseconded; he thought it was absolutely necessary that both landlords and tenants should have at least eighteen months to consider their position under the Bill. He understood that the promoters of the Bill would accept the clause and therefore he would only formally second it.
New Clause—
"This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight."—(Mr. Hicks-Beach.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the clause be read a second time."
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYpointed out that customs differed in various parts of the country. In the part from which he came the holdings invariably dated from Lady Day to Lady Day, and even the extension suggested by his hon. friend would not give time for any such arrangements being made as would absolutely and inevitably be necessary in many cases if this Bill were passed. Supposing a tenant wished to give notice to a landlord or a landlord wished to give notice to a tenant, such notice could not be given until Lady Day next year, to take effect the following Lady Day, so that the earliest quittance would not be until Lady Day, 1908. Therefore he thought if the opera-
506
tion of the Bill was to be postponed so as to give time for the notice to take effect on either side it would really have to be after Lady Day,1909,before there could be any practical advantage from the extension. His hon. friend had shown many good reasons why the extension should be made. A landlord face to face with this Bill would in many cases desire very largely to reduce the expenditure on his estate and would certainly dismiss many agricultural labourers, and some time should be given to these poor fellows to look about them. If the Bill came into operation there would be 100,000 men out of employment. Then, again, the landlord might be contemplating for some time improvements in various directions, but so as not to disturb an old tenant he put off the improvements until the tenant's death. What was he to do under this Bill? If he wanted to carry out any of his improvements he feared he would have to harden his heart, and give notice now instead of waiting until the farm in the natural course of things came into his hands. The result of the Bill was likely to be that such a holding would become empty. He strongly supported the new clause, but he wished to see it so far extended as to cover the natural condition of things. He did not know how the proposal would affect leaseholders in Scotland, but they would always meet with difficulties owing to the difference between tenure under leases and tenure under yearly agreements. From the point of view of yearly tenancies there was every reason why this extension should be made.
MR. SOARESsaid he was sorry that the promoters of the Bill could not accept the clause. It had been said that this Bill was an attack upon landlords, but it was nothing of the kind. The only landlords who would suffer under it were the bad landlords. When the promoters first introduced the Bill they hoped that it would come into operation immediately the Royal Assent was given to it. He wished to state that an Amendment would be moved in due course by the hon. Baronet who represented the Board of Agriculture, which would make the date January 1st, 1907, and that would be accepted.
MR. WALTER LONGhoped the hon. Member for Barnstaple would look at this question from a practical point of view. If the promoters had been content to confine the measure to amending the Agricultural Holdings Act he should have asked his hon. friend not to press his Amendment, but this was an omnibus Bill, which not only dealt with the Agricultural Holdings Act but also altered in a drastic fashion the law of tenure and the law relating to ground game. Under these circumstances was it reasonable to say that the Bill should come into operation within a few days of its passing? The hon. Memer must have made his own time table and he must have taken into account the time it would take to consider the Amendments on the Paper. As a matter of practical politics, it was impossible for this Bill to pass into law in its present form until the end of this year, and was it a reasonable proposition that a Bill should pass late in November or December and then immediately after publication expect its provisions to be known to the thousands of farmers and others who would be affected by it? He submitted that that was not a reasonable position for the hon. Member to take up. The Bill did a great many things which it was necessary that both farmers and landlords should have time to consider. He presumed that upon this question hon. Members opposite had the big landlords in their mind. He had never thought of the big landlords, because they could very well be left to take care of themselves; but there were thousands of small landlords who owned small holdings and they were just as much affected by this Bill as the big landlords. Did anybody imagine that all these small owners could make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the Bill in so short a time? Only that morning he had received a communication upon this very point which he had not had time fully to consider. He submitted to the hon. Member that he would lose nothing by putting in a date that would allow people sufficient time to make themselves acquainted with the Act, while by pressing the measure in its present form he would only be imperilling its passage into law.
MR. NUSSEYthought that the Bill as a matter of draughtsman-ship was so badly drafted that it would take a person of ordinary intelligence at least several months before he could understand what the Bill meant and what his hon. friend meant to achieve by it. The Bill had had the good fortune of the ballot, but it contained principles which deserved more attention than could be given to them upon a Friday afternoon. It dealt with the advisability of setting up the Irish system of dual ownership in this country. ["No."] That was a conclusion they would have to face, whether they liked it or not, and there was a clause in the Bill which did set up the principle of dual ownership. It also challenged the whole system of land tenure in this country. When such questions were dealt with in one Bill they required time and consideration before the measure was put into operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had pointed out that the Bill could not come into law and receive the Royal Assent until the end of this year, and he understood that the Government were going to propose an Amendment that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of January next year. There was much that was good and also much that was harmful in the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted, in order that the various interests might have an opportunity of adjusting themselves to the new conditions.
COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said he intended to support this Amendment, which was necessary under the terms of the Bill itself; for the Bill provided that where freedom of cropping was allowed the conditions should not apply in the last year of the tenancy. There were a great many landlords who had already given their tenants entire freedom of contract, and some of the tenancies would not have a whole twelve months to restore the farms unless the further date was given. Under the terms of the Bill itself they must give more than a whole agricultural year before the measure came into operation.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERthought there was a great deal of force in the argument advanced by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. His speech was not the least in the way of obstruction, but in a practical direction. The Bill would take some time to pass through this House and another place, and consequently there would only be a very short interval between the passing and the commencement of the Act. He thought the acceptance of the Amendment would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill. He did not agree with the apprehensions which had been expressed in connection with this measure, because he believed that there was much good in it, although there were some matters susceptible of amendment. When one realised how slowly the practical working of a Bill of this kind operated in country districts he thought it was of the greatest possible importance that due notice should be given to both landlords and tenants and to all concerned, in order that they might be made fully conversant with its provisions before it came into operation. The proposal was reasonable, and he urged his hon. friend to accept it.
MR. CAVEsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for Pontefract that it would take a great many months to understand the Bill. He had done his best to understand it in the time at his disposal, but he confessed he had not been able to make head or tail of a good many of its provisions. If passed in its present form there would be such a crop of litigation as would absolutely surprise the promoters of the Bill.
MR.SOARES(interrupting), said he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYmoved to amend the new clause by substituting April 7th for January 1st. In most districts in England the landlord and tenant would not have sufficient time to make the new arrangements in connection with agreements which might be necessitated by the passing of the Bill if
510
the date now in the clause were retained. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see the reasonableness of this proposal. If changes had to be made in regard to future agreements it was only right that those concerned should have fair warning, and it would only be possible to give such warning if sufficient time were allowed.
MR. LANE-FOXin seconding the Amendment, associated himself with the noble Lord in the appeal for an extension of time in the interests of tenants who would wish to consider their new position, as well as in the interests of landlords in the North of England where tenancies dated up to Lady Day. It was obvious that the granting of the time asked for would be of extreme importance from the point of view of the Bill itself. All that was asked was that the Bill should be made practical. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman wished to make it practical and useful, and he appealed to him in the interest of both landlords and tenants to make the proposed alteration in the date.
Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
"To leave out: the words 'first day of January,' and insert the words 'seventh day of April' — (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) — instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. SOARESsaid he had made a. concession of a rather important nature, but if hon. Members opposite were going to use any concession which might be made as a step towards further concessions he certainly would not be inclined to make any. He had done his best to comply with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he did not think he should be asked to accept this Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGadmitted that the hon. Gentleman had done his best to meet the objections to the Bill. Reference had been made to difficulty in connection with the legal interpretation to be placed on the clauses. He

511
was no lawyer, but he had taken the trouble to obtain the opinion of lawyers, and he was certain that if the measure passed through the House in anything like its present form, subject only to those Amendments which were on the paper and seemed likely to be carried, it would go quite as far as his hon. friend behind him had stated, and in some cases further. Although the Sill dealt drastically with agricultural holdings, ripped up the law with regard to land tenure, and amended a number of Acts of Parliament, the Committee upstairs had not the advantage for five minutes of the presence of an English law officer of the Crown. Demands were made by his hon. friend and by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for a definite expression of opin on by a responsible law officer of the Crown as to the effect of the clauses. The only law officer present was the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who rendered most valuable service to the Committee, for which he tendered to the hon. and learned Gentleman his warmest thanks. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not express definite opinions on questions of English law and practice. That was the position in which the Committee found themselves. If this Bill passed in its present form it would lead to an enormous amount of friction and difficulty, and there would be considerable labour in interpreting the real meaning of the clauses. He thought the date proposed in the Amendment was better fitted to meet the requirements of the case than that mentioned in the clause. This was not a foolish proposal. The Amendment was one of substance, and therefore he could not ask his hon. friend to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill accepted the Amendment no one would be injured in any way. He did not regard the 1st of January as an effective date, but the 7th of April was.
MR. LEIF JONEShoped that those who were in charge of the Bill would think very carefully before accepting the Amendment. It was moved on the plea that landlords and tenants should have time to rearrange their tenancies. He noticed that
512
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in his support of a later date merely asked for time to consider and understand the Act, and made no mention of any desire that land lords might be enabled to give notice to their tenants. That was rather a remarkable omission.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman should not make suggestions of that kind. I dealt with some of the most important reasons for this proposal, and I said frankly that when I was speaking I had not realised that the original date would not cover this particular case.
MR. LEIF JONESreplied that that was exactly what he said. He suggested that there should not be an exception made in favour of Michaelmas tenancies, as was made in the clause as it now stood. On the other hand, the 7th April was not much use to them in Cumberland and Westmoreland where the tenancies changed frequently on the 1st or 12th of May.
COLONEL LOCKWOODexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment. The hon. Member must not be surprised if small landowners like himself and some of his hon. friends who felt they were going to be attacked by the Bill, should be determined to obtain every possible advantage they could by way of Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had said that it was the small landlords who were going to be principally attacked by the Bill. He would take every means in his power to have every clause thoroughly discussed. Was it surprising that the small landlords, a class in which he included himself, should feel the greatest anxiety about a Bill which, as the hon. Member for Pontefract had said, would practically establish fixity of tenure, fair rents, and dual ownership, and desire that its operations should be delayed as long as possible? For himself, he wanted to have time to think it over, to make such pecuniary arrangements as were left possible for him, and to come to some terms with his tenants. He frankly admitted that with these ideas

513
in his mind it was but natural that he should look for every means for escape. He thought that they had every right to ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the small addition of time proposed by his hon. friend.
MR. CAWLEYsaid that most of the tenants in this country terminated their tenancies on Lady Day. The Bill was of an extremely important character. Nobody could deny that it interfered with vested interests, and created new interests. He thought that a Bill that created new interests in land, which took something from the landlords and gave it to the tenants, was not a Bill which would do much good to the general community. They were all in favour of a scheme which would employ more people on the land. This Bill would not put one more man on the land, nor even lead to the employment of an additional agricultural labourer. It certainly would be of some benefit to the tenant farmers, because it would give them a vested interest in property which they did not at present own. He was in favour of many parts of the Bill, but, as he did not wish to see it rushed through the House without sufficient consideration, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
MR. J. F. MASONsaid it could not for one moment be contended that landlords could be expected to continue to give the same conditions to the tenants under this Bill as they gave now. It could not be expected that landlords were going to accept the responsibilities and liabilities that would be cast upon them, without increasing their rents and making new conditions with their tenants. In many cases the landlords would farm the land themselves, or else throw it out of cultivation altogether. He knew of a case in his own county, where a tenant farmer had bought two small farms, of 200 acres in all. That represented the whole savings of that man's lifetime. What was the position in which this Bill would place that man? It would make it possible for the tenant of one of his farms to bring him into the bankruptcy court, and probably the only man who
514
would be able to buy the land would he a neighbouring big landlord. The prolongation of time asked for by the Amendment was necessary in order to enable the small landlords to safeguard their own interests, and he believed it would also be beneficial to the tenants as well.
MR MUNRO FERGUSONthought the arguments to which they had just listened ought to have been addressed when Clause 5 was under discussion. At the same time he thought that the request for time to understand the Bill was a reasonable one.
MR. ABELSMITHsaid there were good grounds why the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should accept the Amendment. Whether owners or occupiers they ought to have time for the consideration of their position. The only object of his hon. friend in moving his Amendment was that the concession proposed to be made in the Bill would make it fair all round, that tenancies which came to an end at Michaelmas and Lady Day should be placed on exactly the same footing. Something had been said in regard to the legal considerations in relation to this Bill. That recalled to his mind the fact that when the Bill was under review in the Grand Committee they had not the services of an English law officer. He recognised the good service rendered to the Committee by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman very candidly acknowledged that he was not capable, and could not be expected to give advice to the Committee on subjects of English law. He strongly protested against the absence of the law officers of the Crown during the discussion of a Bill which raised many difficult legal points. What he wanted to know was, whether tenancies in regard to which notices had been given before this Bill came into operation, but which would expire after the date at which it came into operation, came within its provisions. ["Yes."] That was a most important point, and although he was obliged to his hon. friends for their advice he thought this question ought to be decided upon the authority of the Government and of the law officers of the Crown. Numerous cases

515
might arise in which either the landlord or tenant might give notice to quit or to determine the Lady Day tenancy. That day was, as had already been pointed out, the 25th of March, 1907, and the notice would not expire till the corresponding day in 1908, and he thought they were entitled to know whether in a case like that the complicated provisions of this Bill would apply.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said there seemed to be a general agreement that something ought to be done in regard to the date at which this Bill should come into operation, and his hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill agreed that there must be an extension of time. That proposal had not met with entire approval, and it was suggested that there should he a later date. He thought it would be better to put an end to this discussion, and defer the debate on this matter until they came to Clause 11, upon which he had an Amendment to the effect that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of January, 1907. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to take a pessimistic view of the Bill as it affected landlord and tenant, and therefore it would be much letter if they postponed the discussion of the date at which it should come into operation till the time when the provisions of it had been settled, and when they knew what alteration it made in the law.
MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)argued that it was only reasonable that the time before which the Bill came into operation should be prolonged so that landlords might give notice to their tenants in regard to their intentions as to the continuance of the tenancy. In his view this was an utterly impossible and unreasonable Bill. If contracts were upset by the Bill, surely it was entirely right and just that the parties should have an opportunity of making other arrangements than those which now existed. All the benefits of the Bill would be given to the incoming tenant and not to the outgoing tenant; for his part he thought the landlord stood in loco parentis to all his tenants but especially to the outgoing tenant. All existing arrangements were upset by the Bill, which was loosely drawn and impossible
516
of application. It was most desirable therefore that this discussion as to the postponement of the date upon which the Bill should come into operation should not be concluded until they had received some assurance which was in accordance with common sense.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYinquired whether, if this new clause were withdrawn, it would be in order to bring forward subsequently a proposal to the same effect.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that if the new clause proposing that the Bill should come into operation on the 1st of January, 1908, was negatived then the same date could not at a later period be inserted in the Bill, because the House would have pronounced its opinion upon it and would have negatived that date. If the clause were withdrawn the question of the date could be raised again at a later period of the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was under the impression that the clause had been read a second time and that they were proceeding to amend it.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he still had to put the question to the House that the clause should be added to the Bill, and if that were negatived then it would be possible to raise the same question but not the same date again.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: And another date can be raised by Amendment?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes; any other day can be proposed.
MR. PIKE PEASEexpressed himself in favour of the landlords of the country being given an opportunity to give notice to their tenants before the Bill came into operation. As a. matter of fact a considerable number of landlords had given notice to their tenants in consequence of the introduction of the Bill, and it seemed to him that others should have the opportunity of doing so. [MINISTERIAL Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but he could prove that that was a

517
reasonable contention. Under the Bill dual ownership would be introduced, and, as had been stated, two vested interests created. If that was going to be the case was it not reasonable that the landlord should have an opportunity of giving notice to his tenant before the Bill came into operation?
MR. CAVEwished to make a practical suggestion. It seemed to him fair to say that, when Parliament was imposing terms which were not in operation when the rent and other terms of tenancy were settled, each party should have an opportunity of considering whether he desired the tenancy to continue on those new terms. Therefore, instead of trying to fix a date, why should they not make a provision that the Bill should not apply to any existing tenancy till the earliest date at which it might have been determined by a notice given after the passing of the Act?
MR. GUESTsaid he was just about to make the same suggestion as the last speaker. It seemed to him to be most unfair that one landlord should be able to determine his tenancies before January 1st, 1908. and others should not have the same opportunity of doing so. He thought that all parties should have an opportunity of regulating their position before the Bill came into operation.
MR. COURTHOPEhoped the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Agriculture to postpone this Question until they got to Clause 11 would not be accepted. If the promoters of the Bill wished to get it through they would do well not to accept it themselves, because, so far as he was personally concerned, the opposition to many clauses of the Bill depended largely upon the time when it came into operation. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had charged them with using one concession — and he admitted it was a great concession —in order to ask for another. But before the hon. Gentleman made that concession a proposal to change the date on which the Bill should come into operation was made by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and he gathered that that
518
proposal would have covered Candlemas entries. He desired to add his voice to what other speakers had insisted on, namely, the importance of treating all landlords alike. It was perfectly ridiculous to say that only sufficient time should be given to enable the agricultural community to understand the Bill. There was every reason why landlords should have time to reconsider their arrangements with their tenants, and, if necessary—as in some cases it would be—to terminate them altogether. The case of the very small landlord had been mentioned. A man who owned two farms might live on one and let the other. It would be impossible for him to risk the huge outlay of capital which he might be called to find if the Bill were passed. He would— as had been suggested—have to go straight into bankruptcy or get rid of his tenants. It would only be fair and common justice that he should have an opportunity of terminating the tenancy. He did not think that the tenant farmer was going to get the slightest advantage from, the Bill. If he were allowed to have this vested interest of course he would get an advantage, but rather than risk the disadvantage of this vested interest the landowner would get rid of the tenant altogether, and that would be disastrous to the whole agricultural community. There were many estates where the sporting rights were of far more monetary value to the landowner than the agricultural rent. Did they think the landowner was going to risk the loss of sporting rights of such value by keeping agricultural tenants under a Bill of this kind? Of course not. He would get rid of them, and it would be a great disaster to all concerned. Then there was the question of the great variety of custom with regard to covenants in leases and agreements indifferent parts of the country. In the part he came from, there was a material difference in the rents of farms according to the distance from the main road, for the simple reason that a tenant, farmer covenanted under present arrangements to repair the roads.
MR. SPEAKER: That question has nothing to do with the alteration of the date.
MR. COURTHOPE(continuing) said that the argument in favour of January 1, 1908, advanced by the promoters was that there was no reason for giving time to landlords to review their tenancies. He was trying to show cause why in cases of tenancies which expired on Lady Day time should be given. He could not enlarge on the subject, but it was an important point. Under the Bill the tenant would get compensation from the landlord for many repairs which he now did at his own cost. That was a reason for allowing time for the reconsideration of the arrangements between landlord and tenant. He held a lease in his hand in which there were covenants as to repairs which would be upset by this Bill. That also was a reason for giving time—not to some—but to all landlords to re-arrange their tenancies before the Act came into operation. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would see their way to accept either the Amendment now before the House or some other Amendments which had been suggested, and would have a similar effect. If they did not, personally he would have to take up an attitude of uncompromising hostility to the Bill. [Laughter.] He did not see what there was for hon. Members to laugh at, because the chance of passing the Bill depended a great deal on the attitude he and his friends might take up in regard to it.
SIR HENRY AUBREY FLETCHERsaid he wished to join in the appeal which had been made by his hon. friend for an opinion from the law officers of the Crown. Although the law officers for England were not present he saw before him the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Attorney-General for Ireland, one or the other of whom might be able to help landowners in their difficulties. At present they were in a rather perplexed state as to how they might be affected if this Bill became law, and therefore he made this appeal. He would also put before the House the difficulties landed proprietors who owned property in
various counties were in. He would take only England; the Bill had nothing to do with Scotland. The tenancies in England varied greatly, and what had been said did not help them out of their difficulty. In the county of Sussex all his tenants on a large property had two years agreements. How would they be affected, and how would he be affected as landlord, in regard to those agreements so far as the date of this Bill was concerned: would the last agreements hold good, although they might not expire until after the Bill had come into force? What, again, as to other counties, where the dates were different, some Lady Day, and some Michaelmas, etc.? There was Cumberland, for instance, and the adjoining county of Westmoreland, alluded to by the hon. Member for Appleby, where the dates differed again. He thought, therefore, the House was justified, and they on that side especially, in pressing on one of the law officers the desirability of saying how they stood.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,)said it was impossible for him to give a categorical reply to the plaintive appeal which had been made—and very properly made—for advice, but generally speaking, he thought he might say that if a notice was given to terminate a tenancy before the Bill came into force, but the notice took effect after the Bill came into force, he thought the Bill would take effect in so far as it amended the existing law. In other words so far as the Bill effected a change in the existing law it would apply to present agreements, but so far as it made a change in the law of landlord and tenant it would not apply.
Mr. SOARESrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 144.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, NE.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Barker, John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Barnard, E. B.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Meagher, Michael

Barnes, G. N.

Gill, A. H.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ginnell, L.

Menzies, Walter

Beale, W. P.

Glendinning, R. G.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Beck, A. Cecil

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Montagu, E. S.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mooney J. J.

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall).

Bennett, E. N.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morse, L L.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gulland, John W.

Murnagham, George

Billson, Alfred

Halpin, J.

Murphy, John

Boland, John

Hammond, John

Murray, James

Branch, James

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Myer, Horatio

Brigg, John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Napier, T. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholls, George

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norman, Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazleton, Richard

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Byles, William Pollard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cairns, Thomas

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Cameron, Robert

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

O'Doherty, Philip

Cawley, Frederick

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hodge, John

O'Dowd, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hogan, Michael

O'Hare, Patrick

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Malley, William

Clarke, C. Goddard

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cleland, J. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Clough, W.

Hudson, Walter

Paul, Herbert

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

Cogan, Denis J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Perks, Robert William

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras W.

Jowett, F. W.

Phillipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cooper, G. J.

Kelley, George D.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central.

Corbett, C H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kilbride, Denis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cory, Clifford John

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Reddy, M.

Crombie, John William

Kitson, Sir James

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Cross, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Renton, Major Leslie

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)

Delany, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Dickinson, W.H.(St. PancrasN.

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rowlands, J.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Russell, T. W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lundon, W.

Sears, J. E.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lupton, Arnold

Seddon, J

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch, H. B.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Erskine, Davies C.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, J.M (Falkirk B'ghs

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulphf Chesh.)

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down. S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal E.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Callum, John M.

Sullivan, Donal

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.

Summerbell, T.

Findlay, Alexander

M'Mieking, Major G.

Torrance, A. M.

Flynn, James Christopher

Maddison, Frederick

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

522

523

Ure, Alexander

White, George(Norfolk)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.

Vivian, Henry

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Winfrey, R.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

Ward, John (Stokeupon Trent

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Young, Samuel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmanon)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Wilkie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Soares and Mr. Arthur. Dewar.

Watt, H. Anderson

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Weir, James Galloway

Wills, Arthur Walters

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Gov'n

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert (Torrens

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Ramnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashfo'd

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hervey. F. W.F. (Bury SEdm'ds

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Warde, Col. C. E, (Kent, Mid)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craig. Captain James(Down, E)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A.R.

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Dixon, Sir Daniel

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The House divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 145.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Delany, William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Byles, William Pollard

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (G'lw'y

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.

Barker, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Barnard, E. B.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Donelan, Captain A.

Barnes, G. N.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Duffy, William J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Clough, W.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Bellairs, Carlyon

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Bennett, E. N.

Cogan, Denis J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Erskine, David C.

Billson, Alfred

Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Blake, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Essex, R. W.

Boland, John

Cooper, G. J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Branch, James

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grins'd

Ferens, T. R.

Brigg, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Bright, J. A.

Cowan, W. H.

Ffrench, Peter

Brooke, Stopford

Crombie, John William

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Cross, Alexander

Findlay, Alexander

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Flynn, James Christopher

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Fullerton, Hugh

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Gill, A. H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd

Ginnell, L.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Glendinning, R. G.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Rowlands, J.

Greenwood, Hainar (York)

M'Callum, John M.

Russell, T. W.

Gulland, John W.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Halpin, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hammond, John

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Scott, A.H. (Ashton-and.-Lyne

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marnham, F. J.

Sears, J. E.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Massie, J.

Seddon, J.

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Cagher, Michael

Shaw, Rt. Hn. Thos. T(Hawick B.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hayedn, John Patrick

Menzies, Walter

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Hazleton, Richard

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Spicer, Albert

Hedges, A. Paget

Montagu, E. S.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen. W.

Morrell, Philip

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murnaghan, George

Sullivan, Donal

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Hodge, John

Murray, James

Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset, E.

Hogan, Michael

Myer, Horatio

Torrance, A. M.

Holden, E.-Hopkinson

Napier, T. B.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholls, George

Ure, Alexander

Hope, W.(Bateman Somers't, N.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncas'r

Vivian, Henry

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hudson, Walter

Norman, Henry

Wallace, Robert

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Waterlow, D. S

Jowett, F. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Watt, H. Anderson

Joyce, Michael

O'Doherty, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Kelley, George D.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Weir, James Galloway

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Hare, Patrick

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Malley, William

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Kitson, Sir James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Laidlaw, Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lambert, George

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lamont, Norman

Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Perks, Robert William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Winfrey, R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Reddy, M.

Young, Samuel

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lupton, Arnold

Rees J D

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lynch, H. B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Mr. Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Beale, W. P.

Cave, George

Agnew, George William

Beck, A. Cecil

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cawley, Frederick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cheetham, John Frederick

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cleland, J. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bull, Sir William James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Courthope, G. Loyd

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

526

527

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Starkey, John R.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Tumour, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

M'Micking, Major G.

Valentia, Viscount

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Fletcher, J. S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Neiil, Hon. Robert Torrens

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashf'rd

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

Percy, Earl

Younger, George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hills, J. W.

Renton, Major Leslie

Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Viscount Helmsley.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

MR. CAVEsaid he now moved the Amendment to which he had previously alluded. The Bill proposed to import into existing agreements conditions entirely new, which no one conceived would be imported into them when the tenancy was accepted, the rent fixed, and the terms of the tenancy agreed to. The effect of his Amendment would be to give a chance to the parties to those agreements to consider whether they would continue under the new conditions. The effect of the Bill was to throw upon the landlord the possibility of very heavy charges for new buildings to the erection of which he did not consent; for new drainage, wells, water courses and so on, for all of which he might be called upon sooner or later to pay. The landlord might well say that he did not contemplate these charges being made when he let his land; that he could not afford to pay them and that he would rather not let the land at all. Again, an agreement of tenancy often contained clauses as to cropping the land and other matters, which were duly considered when the agreements were entered into Parliament was going to say by this Bill that they were to be struck out. The same thing also occurred with regard to the question of game. The landlord might have accepted a lower rent on the ground that damage would be caused by game, and now the Bill proposed that he should be responsible for the damage but should continue to receive the same rent. Under all these circumstances it was only justice
528
that the landlord should be allowed to say whether or not he would determine the tenancy before the Act came into operation. He begged to move.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he seconded the Amendment for which a very good precedent could be found in the Ground Game Act— a precedent which the hon. Member would do well to follow. In that Act a saving clause was inserted in almost the very words moved by his hon. friend. He suggested that it was only reasonable that the hon. Member should put a safeguard of this kind into the Bill and that he could not do better, if he refused the words of his hon. friend, than look up Clause 5 of the Ground Game Act.
Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
"At the end to add the words 'Provided that it shall not apply to any existing tenancy until the day next after the earliest day on which such tenancy might have been determined by notice given after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. SOARESsaid he hoped he would not be considered discourteous if he said he declined to consider the merits of this Amendment—for this reason. He had already accepted the Amendment asked for by the right hon. Member who led the Opposition in this matter.

529
After that Amendment had been accepted it was discussed by the right hon. Gentleman's followers, and the discussion had been prolonged by the moving of further Amendments on the same point.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he sympathised with, the difficult position in which the hon. Member found himself. He was certain that when the hon. Member made the concession he made it frankly and in a friendly spirit. But the hon. Gentleman did not quite realise that the extension for which they now asked was not a frivolous, but a necessary augmentation in order to get into the Bill the meaning which the hon. Member had in his mind when he made the concession.
MR. SOARESsaid he made it with the object of enabling everybody to accept the Bill.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYagreed that his hon. friend had made a bona fide concession to extend the time, but the augmentation they now asked for was to make real and effective that which they understood his lion, friend was willing to concede. It was well to remember, and it was a curious and significant fact, that on every occasion in the legislative history of this country when there had been an Act altering as this Bill did things which had stood for many years it was the almost invariable practice to insert a saving clause of this description to cover existing agreements. The object of the Amendment was not obstructive, and all he desired to point out was that such a clause had been inserted in all Bills of this character.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanark, N. W.)said the hon. Member in charge of the Bill quite misunderstood their ground for the action they were taking up in asking for this concession. The previous Amendment was destined to give time to the landlords and the tenants to arrive at a proper understanding of the Bill, but the object of the Amendment now before the House was to give time to the land-
530
lords and the tenants to make new arrangements in regard to their tenure. The Bill made a very great change in the land tenure of the country, and he could not see why the hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment.
MR. GEORGE FABERthought that both precedent and justice required that the Amendment should be accepted. The precedents were too many to cite and he felt confident that hon. Members opposite would see the justice of the Amendment. Unless it was accepted the effect would be that they would have read into many existing contracts a Bill which would introduce into land tenure innovations of a very alarming nature. All contracts and agreements made up to the present time were naturally made in ignorance of any legislation being passed of the kind now proposed. Was it reasonable to suppose that the landlord and tenant who had entered into arrangements agreeable to both of them should have read into those arrangements legislation of the character now proposed? The Bill would affect more injuriously the smaller landlords than the larger because, as had been said, and with a certain show of reason, the larger landlords could look after themselves, but the smaller landlords did not, unfortunately, fall into that category. Clause 4 was going to do away with the system of cropping altogether. That in itself was a revolution, and would be very injurious to landlords who depended largely upon the cropping system for the proper cultivation of the land. Clause 7 might be fatal to the small landlord, because it proposed that improvements of the most material and vital kind might be set afoot without the consent of the landlord ever having been obtained. Unless, they wiped the slate clean and allowed landlords to enter upon fresh arrangements after having seen what was in the four corners of the Bill they would be doing an injustice to many landlords. No one, he was sure, wished to do that. If they were to have this legislation, lei them have it with their eyes open and. put no one in an unfair position. They would do their best to carry out the law of the land if the Bill became an Act of Parliament, but they should allow the opportunity of terminating existing

531
arrangements before the Bill was brought into operation.
MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)said one part of the United Kingdom had been completely left out of view by the hon. Members who framed this Bill. Whether they had an adequate knowledge of agriculture carried on in the South of England, he had no means of judging; but the Bill certainly aimed a deadly blow at the Scottish system of agriculture. The system in Scotland was one of nineteen-year leases, for which period a rotation of crops suitable to the different districts was laid down. Under that system of rotation of crops the cultivation of the soil in Scotland and the produce would bear comparison with any part of the United Kingdom, not because they were favoured with a more suitable climate, but simply because more science had been followed and greater attention paid in the North than in the South. The Bill gave no consideration to the fact that in Scotland the leases were for nineteen years, and a lease might have been entered into quite recently. During the course of the proceedings in Committee the Solicitor-General for Scotland delivered himself of the saying that the more he looked at this Bill from the Scottish point of view the less he liked it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman gave expression to such a strong view as that they might be assured that the case of Scotland had not been adequately considered by the framers of the Bill. It seemed that under this Bill all sorts of covenants to a lease could be swept away. Anything more unjust and unreasonable it was impossible to bring before the House. It was very little likely to do any real good to the tenants; and what would be the position of the landlord who owned a property constantly falling in value?
MR. BILLSON (Staffordshire, N.W.): Is this in order?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERruled that the hon. Gentleman was in order.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that except for his hon. friend who made a speech
532
from the Scottish point of view he was the only Scottish Member who had had an opportunity of saying anything. All the time that he had been in the House he had never known such constant interruptions on the part of hon. Members. He maintained it was most necessary that in Scotland existing tenancies and arrangements which had been so satisfactory in the past should be excluded from the purview of the Bill. There was a precedent in the Bill introduced by the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and supported by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland. He preferred to pin his faith to the carefully drawn measure promoted by the Department, and supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman, than to a measure proposed by a private Member who knew nothing of the conditions in Scotland.
MR. CHANNINGsaid the Party to which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire belonged passed in 1900 an Act dealing with agricultural holdings for Scotland as well as England, and they fixed that the Act should come into operation on January 1st, 1901, without making exceptions.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not break contracts, lie desired to ask a question to which perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland would give an answer. This Amendment was to give an opportunity of reconsidering the question of contracts entered into between landlord and tenant. Looking through the Bill he discovered one very curious result, namely, that they were going to apply to England a Scottish agricultural Act, and to Scotland an English agricultural Act. If the hon. and learned Gentlemen would look at the short title he would see that they were all made one Act, presumably, so far as this Bill went. It said—
"This Act may be cited as the Agricultural Holdings and Ground Game Act, 1906, and may be cited with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900."

533
What he desired to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider was what effect it would have upon contracts.
MR. UREsaid that in a case in which notice was given to terminate a tenancy it was plain that whilst some of the clauses in this Bill would apply, others would not apply. He would give a general answer which he thought would be satisfactory to the House. It was this: when this Bill passed it was the intention of the Government to embody most of these clauses in a Bill which had been introduced consolidating and amending the Agricultural Holdings Acts. That would follow a very convenient precedent set by the late Government in regard to another matter. Some very minor and secondary alterations would be made. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire was quite right in saying that this Bill as originally drafted was certainly not applicable in its terms to Scotland, and the remark of his to which attention had been called passed his lips at a very early stage of the proceedings in Grand Committee. A number of Amendments were subsequently introduced which modified the Bill for Scotland, so that the remark he made early in the proceedings could scarcely be considered as his final view of the matter.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the speech they had just listened to must surely have convinced the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the only common-sense course was to accept the Amendment. If ever a Motion for the adjournment of the debate was justified I it would be justified on this occasion in order to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which they found themselves. They had just heard a statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland that in his view the Bill as originally in the Committee would have produced hopeless confusion in Scotland. Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's guidance that result had been avoided. But in what position were they who represented other parts? He had always envied the greater advantages which Scotland enjoyed under many of our laws and customs. In the case of the present
534
Bill Scottish interests had had the inestimable advantage throughout the proceedings of the assistance of the extremely able gentleman who had just spoken. Prom the beginning of the proceedings they had never been favoured upstairs or downstairs by the presence of either of the English law officers. The Bill made important proposals. It made direct changes and amendments in the law, and they were now debating an Amendment which would safeguard all interests and put all on the same footing; and surely every word that fell from the Solicitor-General for Scotland justified them in pressing the Amendment. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill had accepted the Amendment postponing the operation of the Act, and he (Mr. Long) was not alive for the moment to the real effect of the change. In the light of what had been said since it was perfectly clear that the date ought to be prolonged to cover existing contracts and put all men on the same footing. He believed if a vote could be taken of the House regardless of Party considerations that would be the decision at which they would arrive. If they proceeded on the lines existing in the clause it would give protection to those whose tenancies expired within the period, and would give no protection in cases where the tenancies expired afterwards. He did not know why the promoters should object to the Amendment; was it because they had made one concession they declined to make another? That might be good Party tactics, but it was not common-sense, and it was not the sort of conduct that was going to help them get their Bill through. They were wasting time in resisting an Amendment which was fair and just, and they were deliberately determined to do a gross injustice to a considerable section of the community.
Mr. SOARES rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the House was prepared to come to a decision. [Cries of "No,"and Members rose on both sides to continue the debate.]
MR. SPEAKER: Then the Question is "that the question be now put."
The House divided: — Ayes, 278; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 146.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lambert, George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Duffy, William J.

Lamont, Norman

Alden, Percy

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lehmann, R. C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Barker, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

Essex, R. W.

Lough, Thomas

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Evans, Samuel T.

Lundon, W.

Barnes, G. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ferens, T. R.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Beale, W. P.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, H. B.

Beck, A. Cecil

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Bonn, John Williams(Dev'np'rt

Flynn, James Christopher

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macnamaia, Dr. Thon as J.

Bennett, E. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Billson, Alfred

Gill, A. H.

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.).

Blake, Edward

Ginnell, L.

M'Callum, John M.

Boland, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Branch, James

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Brigg, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Halpin, J.

Massie, J.

Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

Hammond, John

Meagher, Michael

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Byles, William Pollard

Harmsworth, R.L (Caithn'ss-sh.

Menzies, Walter

Cairns, Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cameron, Robert

Haslem, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cawley, Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Channing, Francis Allston

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E. S.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Clough, W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Murnaghan, George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henry, Charles S.

Murphy, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murray, James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cooper, G. J.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholls, George

Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

Nolan, Joseph

Cory, Clifford John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Hudson, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Crombie, John William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Cross, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kelley, George D.

O'Doherty, Philip

Delany, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Kitson, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Hare, Patrick

Dillon, John

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

O'Malley, William

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Parker, James (Halifax)

Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Partington, Oswald

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Paul, Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Pearson, W.H.M(Suffolk, Eye)

Seddon, J.

Watt, H. Anderson

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Perks, Robert William

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Weir, James Galloway

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Snowden, P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Reddy, M.

Spicer, Albert

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

Renton, Major Leslie

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Richards. T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williamson, A.

Rickett, J. Compton

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sullivan, Donal

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Winfrey, R.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Torrance, A. M.

Young, Samuel

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, James Henry

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ure, Alexander

Rowlands, J.

Verney, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Runciman, Walter

Vivian, Henry

Mr. Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar.

Russell, T. W.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Wallace, Robert

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fardell, Sir T. George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Percy, Ear,

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gordon, Sir W. Evans (T'r Ham.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Starkey, John R.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edm'ds

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cave, George

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Williams Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lane-Fox, G. R

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)

Younger, George

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: — Ayes, 96; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 147.)

AYES.

AcIand-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir

H. Banner, John S. Harmood-

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Percy, Earl

Beach, Hn, Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beck, A. Cecil

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Renton, Major Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. E'm'ds

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Turnour, Viscount

Cawley, Frederick

Kenyon-Slaney Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Walrond. Hon. Lionel

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamont, Norman

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox. G. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Craig. Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.

Wilson, Hon. C. H.W. (Hull, W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES — Mr.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cave and Mr. Laurence Hardy.

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Fardell, Sir T. George

Partington, Oswald

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E-

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew. W.

Flynn, James Christopher

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cogan, Denis J.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Alden, Percy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Allen, A. Acland (Christch.)

Collins, Sir W.J. (S. Pancras. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gill, A. H.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cooper, G. J.

Ginnell, L.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glendinning, R. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cory, Clifford John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barker, John

Cowan, W. H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barlow, John Emmott (S'mrs't

Crombie, John William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cross, Alexander

Gulland, John W.

Barnes, Ct. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Halpin, J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hammond, John

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Bellairs, Carlyon

Delany, William

Hart-Davies, T.

Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't

Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway)

Harwood, George

Benn, W.(T'w'r' H'ml'ts. S. Geo.

Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bennett, E. N.

Dillon, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hazell, Dr. A. E.

Billson, Alfred

Donelan, Captain A.

Hazleton, Richard

Boland, John

Duffy, William J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Branch, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Brigg, John

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Bright, J. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Henry, Charles S.

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Higham, John Sharp

Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesh.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n

Essex, R. W.

Hodge, John

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Evans, Samuel T.

Hogan, Michael

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Everett, R. Lacey

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Cameron, Robert

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Hope, W. Bateman(S'm'rs't, N.

Channing, Francis Allston

Ffrench, Peter

Hudson, Walter

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustance

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Clough, W.

Findlay, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

540

541

Joyce, Michael

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nicholls, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Kekewich, Sir George

Nicholson, Charles H (Doncaster

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Kelley, George D.

Nolan, Joseph

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Norman, Henry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, N.

Snowden, P.

Kitson, Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Spicer, Albert

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Doherty, Philip

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lambert, George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

O'Dowd, John

Sullivan, Donal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Hare, Patrick

Summerbell, T.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Torrance, A. M.

Lewis, John Herbert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Paul, Herbert

Ure, Alexander

Lough, Thomas

Pearson, W. H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Vivian, Henry

Lundon, W.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lupton, Arnold

Perks, Robert William

Wallace, Robert

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lynch, H. B.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'hs.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk. E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf'd, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Watt, H. Anderson

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reddy, M.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Weir, James Galloway

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rees, J. D.

White, George (Norfolk)

M'Callum, John M.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverham'n

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rickett, J. Compton

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roberts, G. H. (Horwich)

Wilkie, Alexander

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Marnham, F. J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth 'n

Massie, J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Meagher, Michael

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Williamson, A.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Rowlands, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Micklem, Nathaniel

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Winfrey, R.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'dd'rsf'd

Morrell, Philip

Schwann, C. E. (Manchester)

Young, Samuel

Murnaghan, George

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Yoxall, James Henry

Murphy, John

Sears, J. E.

Murray, James

Seddon, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Mr.

Myer, Horatio

Seely, Major J. B.

Soares and Mr. Arthur Dewar.

Napier, T. B.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Clause added to the Bill.
MR. LAMBTONmoved an Amendment to the preamble of the Bill, which states that —
"it is expedient, in the interest of good husbandry, that better security should be made for the capital and labour invested by tenants in the cultivation of the soil."
The Amendment was that the words "landlords and" should be inserted after "by." He said that an examination of the provisions of the Bill would show that it was necessary that a proposal of this sort should be introduced. After
542
the speeches they had heard that day from the opposite side it was most necessary to have the House express an opinion, and landlords as well as tenants ought to have some security for their capital and labour. This was a very far-reaching Bill. It established dual ownership and other things, and none of the hon. Members opposite seemed to consider it necessary that the capital and labour expended by a. landlord on his property for the purpose of agriculture should be safeguarded. If they looked through the provisions of the Bill they would see that it was absolutely necessary that his

543
Amendment should be adopted, because there were many clauses under which the landlord would suffer considerable hardship. He would forfeit not only some of his interests, but the security he had now for his life, because under one of the clauses right was given to a tenant to kill hares and rabbits with firearms. The landlord and his guests would walk about, therefore, in fear of being struck by bullets. The fourth clause, dealing with the freedom of cropping and disposal of produce, raised a very large question. The mode of cultivation, cropping, or disposal of produce differed in every county, and he was told even in every estate; yet this Bill proposed to break every contract. They were told that landlords were to have time to discuss what the Bill meant, but they were not allowed time to alter their contracts. The dual ownership established by Clause 5 was a very large question, and there was not time to discuss it in one afternoon. This was a question of which notice certainly ought to be taken in the preamble of the Bill. The system of dual ownership, which was regarded with favour in some quarters, was not recognised as a desirable form of owning land in this country. The tenants at the present time enjoyed great advantages which, he thought, the owners did not enjoy. The promoters of the Bill seemed to look at the question from the point of view of securing the interests of the tenants; but the interests of the landlords were also deserving of consideration. Clause 7, for instance, provided that the consent of the landlord was not required for the laying down of permanent pasture, or for —
"Repairing buildings, roads, bridges, watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or of works' for the application of water-power, or for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes."
This far-reaching clause was one which he thought the promoters of the Bill could not have thoroughly considered. In most districts of England the landlords did the repairs themselves, and as to permanent pasture any landlord who was interested in the proper cultivation of his land should be consulted on the question. The provision as to "supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes" might mean that a tenant could provide reservoirs and water-power which would
544
enable him to provide the farmhouse with electric light. When the tenant left the farm the single arbitrator under the Bill would probably lay down that this was an improvement for which the land lord ought to pay compensation. It must also be recollected that the land lord had to pay compensation in cash. The compensation would be determined according to existing ideas of what a so-called improvement was worth, and it would be seen how inequitable this was when they considered the further provisions of the clause. It provided that the consent of the landlord should not be required, among other things, for the Planting of orchards, fruit trees, straw-berries, asparagus, and other vegetable crops. That would put the landlord in a perfectly impossible position. The value of land which was worth £5 an acre, when planted with strawberries or rhubarb, might fall in two or three years time to £3 or £2 10s.; but the tenant, when he went out, would be awarded, under this Bill, compensation on the basis of £5. Surely no man could call that justice. In the district of Biggleswade the market gardens produced onions which were worth £10 a ton a few years ago; but owing to foreign competition the labouring classes were now able to buy onions much cheaper. At any rate, what was worth £10 a ton a few years ago was now worth only £3, and the landlord might be called upon to pay to a tenant who had planted onions compensation at a rate which would represent their value at £10 a ton. The tenant in that way would profit in a double degree — he would profit from the fertility of the land while he remained in occupation, and he would on leaving get a profit from the landlord in the shape of compensation for improvements. The district of Leeds was not a very promising place for the growing of rhubarb, but a large amount of rhubarb was grown there and sold in the market at a large price. he method was —
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment to the preamble. Many of his observations would have been pertinent to Clause 7, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into these matters now.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he was pointing out how necessary it was to preserve the interests of the landlords. It was obvious that in the interests of good husbandry the interests of the landlord must be considered as well as those of the tenant. Under this Bill the whole subject would become a mass of litigation, and he desired that the Bill should be so amended that it would be clearly understood by all parties in the land that the landlords' interests as well as the tenants' were to be preserved. He begged to move.
LORD HELMSLEY,in seconding the Amendment, said it raised one of the most important questions which could arise in the discussion of the Bill. The point ultimately raised was as to which was the best system of land tenure — whether it should be a system in which the landlord and the tenant had each a distinct sphere of action, or whether it should be a system in which one individual only had a sphere of action in the land. The Bill recognised only the rights of the tenant, and the Amendment was necessary in order that the rights of the landlord, which the House surely would admit did exist, might be properly safeguarded. Under the existing system the tenant utilised the land at a certain rent, and he was able to get the use of more land, owing to the fact that the landlord's capital was sunk in the land, than he could if he were the occupying owner. A great many hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that occupying ownership was the only system which ought to prevail. If they were to say that the landlords' interests should be removed altogether it would be a position which one could understand, but it would not be a just form of legislation, and it was not the form of legislation which, as yet, they would expect any House of Commons to pass. The Bill went some way in that direction, for it did not recognise the rights of the landlords who had provided so much of the capital employed in connection with the land. There was no question as to whether a farmer would or would not be better if he owned his present holding. By employing a certain amount of capital the tenant farmer was able under the present system to get the use of so much land out of which he got his living.
546
No one would dispute that the real thing that mattered to a farmer was the amount of land he was able to use; that was far more important to him than anything else. The more land he was in occupation of the more likely he was to make a profit out of it. Some interesting tables had been prepared showing that under the present system of tenure a man with a given amount of capital was able to obtain the use of a considerably larger area of land than he would be able to secure with the same capital under a system of occupying ownership. He dared say that hon. Members had seen the tables to which he referred, which showed pretty plainly that the tenant derived benefit from the capital which the landlord had in the holding. If it was admitted that the landlord's capital was of value to the tenant by enabling him to use more land than he otherwise could it must be admitted that this capital should be secured to the landlord and not confiscated. The Bill took away from the landlord part of his right in land. Instead of discouraging capital the object of legislation should be to encourage it and increase it so that there should be more for the tenants to have the use of.
Amendment proposed—
"In preamble, page 1, line 3, after the word 'by,' to insert the words, 'landlords and.'" — (Mr. Lambton.)
Question proposed, ".That those words be there inserted."
MR. SOARESsaid that although he regretted the amount of time which had been occupied in discussing this Amendment, he must say that for some reasons he did not regret it had been moved. He sincerely trusted that tenant farmers who were watching the progress of this measure would observe the words of the preamble to which the Party opposite were taking exception. They were that —
"It is expedient in the interest of good husbandry that better security should be made for the capital and labour invested by tenants in the cultivation of the soil."
LORD HELMSLEYindicated dissent.
MR. SOARESsaid it was to that proposition that objection had been taken

547
and an Amendment moved. [Cries of "No" and "An addition."] The real parent of the Bill was the hon. Member for South Molton. Although he had now deserted the green fields for the blue water, let any hon. Member who wanted to know whether he had practical knowledge of tenant-farming go down into Devonshire and inquire. The preamble was passed unanimously by the Grand Committee upstairs. There was not a word said against it then. The Grand Committee was a very good one; they had no less than nine sittings, they had never to wait a minute for a quorum, and there were never less than forty-three Members present at any meeting.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYreminded the hon. Member that he had proposed to amend the preamble from the beginning of the proceedings in Committee, and had only refrained from moving it to expedite progress. Therefore it was not quite accn-rate to say that they had consented to this part of the Bill being passed without any Amendment. Referring to the part taken by Mr. Agar-Robartes in Committee, he wished to say that although they did not agree with that Gentleman in politics, they on that side of the House could not but extend sympathy to him in the disappointment he had recently experienced, more especially as they understood the position to be the result of no misconduct of his own. His hon. friend who had last spoken and he were on common ground in their relation to the land. He was as proud of his Bohemian descent as no doubt the hon. Member for Barnstaple was of his Portuguese ancestry.
MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see what is the relevance of this genealogical research.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that his object was to show that it took a family some time before they became competent to advise the House on land tenure. It had taken his family 700 years; his hon. friend's not, he thought, so long; but his descendants would look back with pride to the help he gave on this occasion. He wanted to say seriously that this Bill
548
touched some of the most vital problems of the day, especially all economic questions relating to the land. The preamble of the Bill was not, he thought, accurate, and it wanted correction as well as some of the clauses. The occupier's position in a case of land tenure was very important, but it was not the sole interest, and they could not in the interests of the community at large forget the interests of other classes. It was a fatal mistake to give exceptional privileges to one class at the expense of another; to take away the legitimate property of one class, and give it without consideration to another. The Amendment asserted the joint interest of landlord and tenant in the problems dealt with by the Bill. It had been estimated that between 1875 and the year 1902, owing to the depression in agriculture, the tenants had lost no less a sum than £253,000,000. That undoubtedly established a very good case for the full consideration by legislation of the position of the tenants. But it should also be remembered that in the same time, and as a result of the same causes, the owner. had lost £ 1,054,000,000 worth of property. Surely that showed that they must be careful in helping one class that the other class was not sacrificed. It could not too often be repeated that there could be no hope for the agricultural industry unless it attracted capital, but he maintained that the return for an investment in land after deducting rates, tithes, insurance, etc., was small and precarious at the best. It was of the most intense importance to the occupants of land that the owners should be induced to live on their own soil; but his contention was that this Bill would tend very largely to restrict the enjoyment of those landlords who did so. There was a conviction, in some quarters that the landlords drew the money from the soil and spent it elsewhere. That was a mistake; he would give an instance, for the accuracy of which he could personally vouch. During fourteen years the total rental, received from a small estate in the country was £58,000. Rates, taxes, tithes, insurance, came to £10,000, leaving £48,000; but out of that 48,000 there had to be spent on improvements and repairs for increasing the accommodation of the tenants, for the better housing of the

549
labourers, etc., £22,000. Further, there had been spent in wages to those who lived on the property £18,000, so that during the fourteen years, £ 50,000 of the rental had been returned to the soil. He could assure the Committee that the reason why the owners remained on the soil was because they had an intense love of their own homes; and they realised that the first duty of a man who lived in his own home was to consider the welfare of all members of the establishment and grant them guidance and assistance. He thought full reason had been given
why the Amendment which would unite owners and occupiers and all connected with the soil should be accepted. It would show a sense of fair play.
MR. SOARESrose in his place, and: claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question he now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 148.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Henderson, J. M. (Aberd'n. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christch.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Delany, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Ashton, Thomas G-air

Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway)

Higham, John Sharp

Astbury, John Meir

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hodge, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

Hogan, Michael

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Dobson, Thomas W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barker, John

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hope, W. Bateman (Som'rs't. N.

Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't

Donelan, Captain A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hudson, Walter

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Beale, W. P.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Beck, A. Cecil

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jowett, F. W.

Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't

Erskine, David C.

Joyce, Michael

Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts. S. Geo

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bennett, E. N.

Essex, R. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Evans, Samuel T.

Kelley, George D.

Billson, Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Branch, James

Ferens, T. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brigg, John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kitson, Sir James

Bright, J. A.

Ffrench, Peter

Laidlaw, Robert

Brooke, Stopford

Findlay, Alexander

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r.

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesh.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lambert, George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamont, Norman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fullerton, Hugh

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gardner, Col. Alan (Heref'd, S.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Cairns, Thomas

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cameron, Robert

Gill, A. H.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ginnell, L.

Lehmann, R. C.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich

Cawley, Frederick

Glendinning, R. G.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Channing, Francis Allston

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Clough, W.

Greenwood, Haruar (York)

Lough, Thomas

Coats. Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Gulland, John W.

Lundon, W.

Cogan, Denis J.

Hammond, John

Lupton, Arnold

Collins, Stephen (Lambert)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Lynch, H. B.

Cooper, G. J.

Harwood, George

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cowan, W. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Crombie, John William

Hazleton, Richard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Cross, Alexander

Hedges, A. Paget

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

M'Callum, John M.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Spicer, Albert

M'Micking, Major G.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Stanger, H. Y.

Maddison, Frederick

Perks, Robert William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Marks, G. Croydon (Lavmceston

Piakersgill, Edward Hare

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Marnham, F. J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Massie, J.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Summerbell, T.

Meagher, Michael

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Menzies, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rainy, A. Rolland

Torrance, A. M.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Ure, Alexander

Montagu, E. S.

Reddy, M.

Vivian, Henry

Mooney, J. J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rees, J. D.

Wallace, Robert

Morrell, Philip

Renton, Major Leslie

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Murnaghan, George

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Murphy, John

Rickett, J. Compton

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Murray, James

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Myer, Horatio

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waterlow, D. S.

Napier, T. B.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Watt, H. Anderson

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nicholls, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, George (Norfolk)

Nolan, Joseph

Roche, John (Galway, East)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rowlands, J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nuttall, Harry

Runciman, Walter

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Russell, T. W.

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Doherty, Philip

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth' n

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sears, J. E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Williamson, A.

O'Dowd, John

Seddon, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Grady, J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Hare, Patrick

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Malley, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Young, Samuel

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Partington, Oswald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Paul, Herbert

Snowden, P.

Soares and Mr. Winfrey.

Paulton, James Mellor

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

NOES

Anatruther-Gray, Major

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Keswick, William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lockwood, Rt. Hn Lt.-Col. A.R.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fell, Arthur

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bowles, G. Stewart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fletcher, J. S

Meysey-Thompson, E. C

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Burdett-Coutts, W

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Carlie, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nield, Herbert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Percy, Earl

Cave, George

Hay, Hon. Claude

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S Edm'ds

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Coates. E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

552

553

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Younger, George

Starkey, John R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Thornton, Percy M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Tumour, Viscount

Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes 285. (Division List No. 149.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Denison (York)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fll, Arthur

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Remnant, Janes Farquharson.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Beale, W. P.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Sneaton, Donald Mackenzie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel. H.(Hertford, East)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm 'ds

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Tumour, Viscount

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lamont, Norman

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cave, George

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

Whitehead, Rowland

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Coates, E. Feetham (Le wisham)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Younger, George

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Lambton and Viscount. Helmsley.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Branch, James

Cowan, W. H.;

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Bright, J. A.

Crombie, John William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Brooke, Stopford

Cross, Alexander

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Dalziel, James Henry

Astbury, John Meir

Brunner Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cairns, Thomas

Delany, William

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cameron, Robert

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Barker, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Barlow John Emmott(Somerset

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cawley, Frederick

Dickinson, W.H-(St. Pancras, N

Barnard, E B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Barnes, G. N.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dobson, Thomas W.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Clough, WT.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Beauchamp, E.

Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Beck, A. Cecil

Cogan, Denis J.

Duffy, William J.

Benn, John Williams(Devonp't

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Bennett, E. N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cooper, G. J.

Dunne. Major E. Martin(Walsall.

Billson, Alfred

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E Grinst'd

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Boland, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Erskine, David C.

Lupton, Arnold

Rickett, J. Compton

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ridsdale, E. A.

Essex, R. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Evans, Samuel T.

Lynch, H B.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Robertson. Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Rowlands, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Runciman, Walter

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Callum, John M.

Rusell, T. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Schwann, Chas. E (Manchester)

Ginnell, L.

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Glendinning, R. G.

Meagher, Michael

Seaverns, J. H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Meehan, Patrick A.

Seddon, J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

Gulland, John W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hammond, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Montagu, E. S.

Sloan, Thomas Herry

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)

Mooney, J. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Snowden, P.

Harwood, George

Morrell, Philip

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murnaghan, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murphy, John

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, James

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hazleton, Richard

Myer, Horatio

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

Sullivan, Donal

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Summerbell, T.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Sutherland, J. E.

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Thompson, J.W.H-(Somerset, E.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nolan, Joseph

Torrance, A. M.

Higham, John Sharpe

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Ure, Alexander

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMic)

Vivian, Henry

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Wallace, Robert

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Doherty, Philip

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Hudson, Walter

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Dowd, John

Waterlow, D. S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Grady, J.

Watt, H. Anderson

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Hare, Patrick

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Weir, James Galloway

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Kekewich, Sir George

Parker, Janes (Halifax)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Kelley, George D.

Partington, Oswald

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wiles, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilkie, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lambert, George

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Williamson, A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

Lehmann, R. C.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Young, Samuel

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rea, Walter Russell(Searboro'

Yoxall, James Henry

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Reddy, M.

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rees, J. D.

Soares and Mr. Winfrey.

Lough, Thomas

Renton, Major Leslie

Lundon, W.

Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKERsaid that in consequence of the decision of the House on the last Amendment, an Amendment standing in the name of Colonel Kenyon-Slaney was out of order. This Amendment ran—
"Preamble, page 1, line 3, at end, to add the words 'but consistently with the rights of the owners thereof, and with the capital and labour invested by them in its cultivation and development, and with the interests of the rural labouring classes, and of the community generally in such investment fund.'"
The House had decided that better security should not be given for the capital invested by landlords, and therefore that decision covered the Amendment or at all events a portion of it.
MR. SOARES,on the point of order, asked whether the Amendment was not beyond the scope of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKERthought that the interests of the agricultural labourer and the question in regard to investments in land came within the scope of the Bill. The House, however, had already dealt with a portion of the Amendment.
MR. SOARESsaid the Bill only dealt with the relations between landlords and tenants and tenants and landlords.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYwished to point out that the labourers formed a very considerable part of the arrangements between landowners and tenants, and to leave out the labourers was not part of the policy of hon. Members on that side of the House.
MR. SPEAKERagreed that he could not say that the labourer was not a tenant. He thought he very often was a tenant.
MR. SOARESwished to know, if the labourer was a tenant, whether he was within the preamble of the Bill.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the words of the preamble dealt with the capital and labour invested. Therefore could it not be said that questions concerning labourers could be dealt with?
MR. SPEAKERsaid that these additions to the preamble led to very little, and until one saw the Amendment or the clause which was proposed, one could not say whether it was in order or not. He could not say on the face of it that there might not be Amendments which might deal with this subject, which might come within the scope of the Bill.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would endeavour to keep within the ruling of the Speaker and to make his observations as short as possible. He moved the insertion of the words "but consistently with the interests of the rural labouring classes and of the community generally in such investment." The interest of the rural labouring classes happened to be a point which he had spent some fifty years of his life in attempting to solve. Therefore if there was any man in the House who could speak with authority on the matter it was himself. Every single labourer on his estate held his cottage from him and was his tenant. He held it under conditions which saved him from capricious eviction or any capricious action whatever. Therefore he was very much interested in this question, and on his estate the occupation of the labourers of their cottages was a matter of first rate importance as to the conditions attaching to the tenancies. There were many people who seemed to think that if they settled the financial question between the owner and occupier they had settled the whole question concerning the rural community. That, however, was not so.
MR. SOARESsaid the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept the

559
Amendment provided the hon. and gallant Gentleman would finish his speech. He pointed out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had himself said that he did not wish needlessly to occupy the time of the House.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was not going to be outdone in courtesy by the hon. Gentleman, and would at once finish his speech.
Amendment proposed—
"In the Preamble, page 1, line 3, at the end to add, but consistently with the interests of the rural labouring classes and of the commnuity generally in such investment.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)rose to move to omit Sub-section 1 of Section 1 which amended the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900. This sub-section repealed the proviso in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, which limited the scope of the improvements in respect to which compensation was to be given. It did not give any description or indicate in any way what the improvements were for which the tenant was to be compensated, and that appeared to him to set a very bad precedent. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900 had been in operation for something like six years and had worked extremely well. He was aware there were some hon. Members on that side who thought that a portion of the Act of 1900 might be omitted, and that the words "the inherent capability of the soil" might be left out. For his part he did not think so, and when one considered what the expression meant, he thought it was obvious that these words should be retained. What the tenant should be compensated for was for what he himself had done, and he ought not to be
560
compensated for what he had not done. If he developed "the inherent capabilities of the soil" he was simply doing his duty and he reaped the reward of good, husbandry by the crops which his cultivation produced, and it seemed to him that it would be a mistake to remove this safeguard of the landlords' interest. There were a certain number of men among tenants who were called "scampers," who did not preserve "the inherent capabilities of the soil," their intention being to take as much out of the soil as they possibly could, and then go somewhere else. The preamble of the Bill said that it was brought forward "in the interest of good husbandry." Therefore it was not expedient to omit anything which was a safeguard for good husbandry. He thought the omission of the provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, would tend to realise the fear which had been expressed that this Bill would only increase litigation and not benefit the landlord or the tenant, but only the lawyer. He did not want to say anything detrimental to the legal profession, but they were not averse to anything which brought business to them. He thought the proper limit of the tenants' claim for improvements should be the actual cost, but he would not go into that matter now because it was possible it might be brought up at a later stage.
And, it being Five of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, amended by the Standing Committee, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended (by Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Four minutes after Five O'clock till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Finance.

2. Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters.

3. Metropolitan Police (Commission).

4. Police (Superannuation).

5. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1).

6. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders; (No. 2).

7. Marriages Provisional Order.

8. Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation.

9. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

10. Holyhead Water.

11. Norwich Union Life Insurance Society.

12. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund).

13. Mersey Railway.

14. North Sussex Gas and Water.

15. Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways.

16. New Mills Urban District Council

17. North East Lincolnshire Water.

18. National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company.

19. South Lancashire Tram ways (Ex-tension of Time).

20. Scottish Provident Institution Buildings.

21. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Lord Graves—Henry Cyril Percy Graves' claim to vote as Lord Graves at the election of representative Peers for Ireland. Committee for Privileges to meet on Monday the 2nd of July next.
Earldom of Norfolk. Committee for Privileges to meet on Monday the 2nd of July next.
Lord Chaworth (E. Meath) took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5). Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).
The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
Standing Orders Committee. Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill; ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.
Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill. Reported with Amendments.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read la.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 17th and 29th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
North East London Railway Bill. Committed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [H.L.].; Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [H.L.].; Ritz Hotel, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Committed, the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill. Committed.
London County Buildings Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges); London Government Schemes (London and Penge, etc.) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Camperdown (chairman), L. Clinton, L. Monk Bretton, L. Sudley. (E. Arran), L. Leith of Fyvie; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Poole Corporation Water Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill: Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the examiners.
Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Southampton Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Returned from the
468
Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, (No. 132); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, (No. 133); Water Provisional Order Bill, (No. 134). Brought from the Commons. Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ASTRONOMER ROYAL (GREENWICH OBSERVATORY).
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the board of visitors of the Royal Observatory. Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 30th May 1906.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Report of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill of the Australian Commonwealth, 1904.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3648. China (Wuhu).
  No. 3649. Paraguay.
  No. 3650. Austria-Hungary (Fiume).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Report and recommendations of the Committee appointed to investigate and advise the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the improvement of the ventilation of the House of Commons.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)
  Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1907. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 131.)
  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  The Lord Balfour discharged from serving on the Select Committee.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House of Lords Offices. Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, before the House resolves it-self into Committee I desire to say a few words upon this Bill, as circumstances over which I had no control prevented
  470
  my being present to take part in the debate on the Second Reading. I do not propose to utter one jarring note after the harmonious discussion which took place upon the last stage. I concur entirely in all that was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I sincerely hope that with the disappearance of the property qualification in England we shall not see the dignity or efficiency of the Bench impaired.
  The property qualification was instituted many years ago for the purpose of preventing any possible corruption on the part of those appointed as magistrates. I think I am justified in saying that our system of an unpaid magistracy has worked exceedingly well for many years, and to my mind it would be a very deplorable thing if, owing to assimilating the qualification in England to that in Ireland and Scotland, the dignity of the Bench were lowered. It is, therefore, with great regret that I should see appointments to the local benches made simply as a reward for services of a political character. I have read with great interest the debate which took place in your Lordships' House a week ago, and I noticed that in the very lucid, and may I say moderate, speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the statement was made that Members of the Party to which I have the honour to belong predominate on the Bench. I do not deny that. My own experience tells me that that is the case, but I think it is generally found that the reason for that is that those who have been more specially qualified to occupy a seat on the Bench in the various districts have as a rule belonged to that Party.
  I have had the honour of being His Majesty's representative in the County Down in Ireland, and until recently in the city of Belfast, and I have always endeavoured to appoint gentlemen to the Bench, regardless of what their political or religious views were, so long as they could perform satisfactorily the duties of the position. But in the County Down I have been obliged to select Protestants because I have experienced difficulty, in that Protestant county, in finding gentlemen of the opposite faith who were in every way qualified for the fulfilment of the duties. The debate which took place the other day was undoubtedly a very interesting one, but I

  471
  confess I read it with a certain amount of surprise. I am one of those who consider that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and I had hoped that we should have heard from someone how justices of the peace discharge their duties in Ireland and Scotland where no property qualification is insisted upon. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have given us his experience on that point.
  Of Scotland I know very little, but I have had some experience with regard to Ireland, and in the part with which I am particularly associated there is no complaint whatever to be made of those appointed to the Bench. But I am sorry I cannot speak in the same congratulatory tone as to the south of Ireland. It is well known that in the south of Ireland, between 1892 and 1895, there were appointed a large number of magistrates solely on political grounds. I believe that will not be denied. They are now recognised as Morley's magistrates; and I do not know that they added very much to the credit of the various benches to which they were appointed. I have heard it said that some of the gentlemen appointed to benches in the south of Ireland had themselves in previous years appeared before those benches. I have also heard that so little confidence was felt in those gentlemen that the inhabitants would rather appear before the resident magistrate. There is one occurrence I should like to bring before your Lordships for which I can vouch, though I will not mention any names. The present Lord Chancellor, of whom I speak with the greatest possible respect, in the days to which I allude sent a list of names to a Lord-Lieutenant in the south of Ireland asking him to recommend them to be justices of the peace for his county. The Lord-Lieutenant asked for an interview, and explained that he could not take upon himself the responsibility of recommending those gentlemen, as many of them had themselves appeared before the magistrates.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): The noble Marquess is referring to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: Yes, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  472
  The Lord-Lieutenant came upon two names and absolutely declined to recommend them. The Lord Chancellor urged that he should do so, but the Lord-Lieutenant still persisted in his refusal. "Why not recommend them?" asked the Lord Chancellor. "Because," replied the Lord-Lieutenant, "they died a fortnight ago of delirium tremens, one of them a bankrupt." I mention this to show what might be the condition of things on the Bench if appointments are made to the magistracy purely as-a reward for political services. The dignity of the Bench should be maintained, and I mention this instance to show that if we do assimilate the condition of things in England to that in Ireland, we must not go to the extreme of rewarding, political services by putting on the Bench gentlemen who are not qualified. I trust that Lords-Lieutenant will be very careful in submitting names to the Lord Chancellor. I do not oppose the Bill now before your Lordships, but I have brought this matter forward in the hope that nothing will be done to impair the dignity and efficiency of the Bench.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the appointment of magistrates, which may no doubt often have been pressed on the Lord Chancellor of the day or the Lord-Lieutenant of a county, on account of political services. But there is one point in connection with this question which does not seem to be touched by the Bill, to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. As Member for a large city, I have often had the names of gentlemen brought before me for recommendation to the Lord Chancellor, and those recommendations have usually come, by arrangement, from both political parties. As a rule, I think, there is a feeling that appointments of this kind should be recommended, to some extent at any rate, on political grounds, I do not say in the minds of those who make them, but in the minds-of those who recommend them. I think everyone must have noticed, in looking into this subject as it affects the English counties and boroughs, that there is an extraordinarily high proportion of names of persons who appear on the lists but who never do a stroke of work. They probably have been appointed for some such reason as I have alluded to.

  473
  These persons when appointed probably thought of nothing beyond the fulfilment of their desire to have what is locally considered the great honour of writing "J.P." after their name; they never thought that the honour also carried with it the fulfilment of duties. If it were possible for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or for Lords-Lieutenant from time to time to remote such names from the list, I think that a great reform might be achieved.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, when the duty devolved upon me of exercising the office now discharged by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I repeatedly requested that an undertaking should be given by the person appointed to the magistracy to do his duty as justice of the peace, and although I have not actually removed the names of those who have not done their duty I have caused letters to be written to them from time to time pointing out that if they did not do their duty they were not fit to be magistrates and should be removed, and I have found that the hint has been invariably adopted. Undoubtedly the person appointed should undertake to perform the duties.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in view of what has fallen from my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn. I entirely concur in what he says as to the difficulty of procuring the regular attendance of magistrates on the Bench, and I have been impressed in Ireland with the fact that this is a growing difficulty in the manning of the county benches. A somewhat different system prevails in Ireland from that which obtains in England with reference to the appointment of magistrates, and I am not sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack might not find it desirable to inquire of the very efficient officer who is in charge of that branch of the Lord Chancellor's duties in Ireland what are the actual details connected with the appointments there.
  For a great many years we have had no such property qualification in Ireland as that which has existed in England; but the custom has been, ever since I was first appointed Lord Chancellor and for many years before, for I did not initiate it, to send to Lords-
  474
  Lieutenant in Ireland forms which they would forward when they desired to invite a gentleman to join the magistracy. This form, which would be filled up in the candidate's own handwriting, would contain a statement as to his name, age, residence and property in that particular county or in other counties, and information on various other matters which would be of assistance both to the Lord-Lieutenant and to the Lord Chancellor when the time came for considering his fitnessfor appointment. One of the questions asked of a candidate was as to the petty sessional districts he proposed to attend, and personally I have very rarely sanctioned more than three. Another question asked was whether, if appointed to the magistracy, he proposed to give a regular attendance in the petty sessional districts named. All these questions are in the direction of getting that regular attendance which my noble friend has indicated.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has stated that he occasionally directed the attention of those who were negligent to their duties as justices of the peace, but I am afraid it is not very easy to secure compliance with such requests. My attention on one occasion was directed by Lord St. Aldwyn when Chief Secretary for Ireland to this matter, and I applied myself to ascertaining those magistrates who had gone away and those who had ceased to take any part in the work of the county, and I was thus able to remove many names that had become perfectly useless so as to obtain a more effective list. The matter is one beset with a great deal of difficulty and requires much tact and prudence.
  LORD HENEAGE: I should like to ask whether the law is not perfectly clear on this point, that clerks of the peace are obliged to make out a list of magistrates who have not attended for two years, and that these magistrates are put on the nonresident list.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I may state, in view of the observations of the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor for Ireland, that personally I have never appointed any magistrates without asking for the information referred to, and an undertaking that the persons whom I recommended would perform their fair share of the duties attached to the position.

  475
  That undertaking has invariably been given, but I am sorry to say it has not always been carried out. With regard to the remarks of my noble friend below me, I think one word ought to be said in defence of the magistrates themselves. It is this, that many of our benches are now so crowded that there is not seating accommodation for all of them.
  LORD HEMPHILL: My Lords, I have had considerable experience of the magistracy of Ireland and full opportunity of knowing how the justices generally have discharged their duties. I am not aware that there have been any complaints at all against the unpaid magistracy of Ireland, either in regard to non-attendance or insufficient attention to the discharge of their duties; and if there were any grounds for supposing that improper persons had under the existing law in Ireland been appointed to the Bench surely instances could have been adduced to your Lordships. I would remind noble Lords that the existing property qualification is not of such a nature as to prevent the abuses apprehended. If corruption, political or of any other nature, could creep into the appointment of magistrates the existing qualification would not be sufficient to prevent it. Therefore it occurs to me that no argument whatever has been advanced against the present Bill.
  No qualification has been necessary in Ireland for more than a century at least, and after long experience, having lived all my life in Ireland and had the opportunity of knowing how the magistrates act in the southern counties, I can hardly call to mind any instance where abuses have been shown to exist. If we search the records of the Court of the King's Bench in Ireland it will appear that it is very rarely indeed that the decisions of the magistrates are called in question, except in occasional differences of opinion on questions of legal niceties. I think, therefore, that this is one of the cases in which, if possible, the laws of the three countries should be assimilated, and there is no fear of abuse. It is necessary that the people should have confidence in the magisterial administration of justice, and it is desirable therefore that the justices
  476
  should not all be of the same way of political thinking.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has informed your Lordships that in Ireland there is a form which has. to be filled up by the applicant and is sent by His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant to the Lord Chancellor. That is perfectly correct, but I wish I could say that it was of much use. Unfortunately, although the applicants do sign this form and say they will give as much of their time to the actual work on the bench as is compatible with their other duties, they do not fulfil their promise. The result is, at all events in my own county, that at least, one half of the magistrates do not attend at all. I always feel most reluctant to recommend anybody to the Lord Chancellor, because I know that the bench is already overcrowded. Yet at the same time there are many whose claims are brought before me who ought to be magistrates, but I cannot see my way to recommend them. I am sure I am speaking what is in the minds of a great number of Lords-Lieutenant in the populous districts both of Ireland and of England when I say that it would be conducive to the public service if some arrangement could be made by which magistrates who did not attend should automatically cease to be magistrates after a certain time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess who spoke first appealed to me to say something with regard to one or two points. As to the point raised by the noble Viscount, that there ought to be some means by which magistrates who do not attend should cease to be justices of the peace without any reflection upon them, I agree that this suggestion is well worthy of consideration. I am afraid, however, that I am myself disqualified from expressing any opinion on the subject, because I am one of the delinquents, I was appointed eleven years ago a magistrate for the county of Kent. I did not give- any undertaking that I would attend, but the real pressure of work has prevented me from putting in one solitary appearance from that day to this. Therefore, my first duty would be to remove myself.

  477
  There ought, I think, to be an understanding, if not an undertaking, that when a magistrate accepts the position it should be with the intention of discharging the duties. It is quite correct that there is a constant correspondence on matters relating to the magistracy going on in the Lord Chancellor's office, and there are frequent requests to know whether gentlemen intend to perform their duties or are willing to be removed from the Commission of the Peace, but they never display any alacrity to be removed. With regard to the absence of qualification in Scotland and its effect, it must be remembered that in Scotland justices of the peace have fewer duties to discharge than in England; the Scottish analogy, therefore, is not absolutely to the mark. I believe the absence of qualification makes no difference there, nor would it make any difference here. It must be remembered that there is no qualification necessary now in great boroughs like Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds. The magistrates in the boroughs are appointed without qualification; they discharge most important duties, and I have never heard that the absence of the property qualification has made any difference.
  I do not think there is any real advantage in any money test. It is not a question of how much money a man has, but whether he is a man of education, of firmness of character, and one who is looked up to and respected by his neighbours. About the relations of politics and the magistracy, I wish there were no such thing, and that we heard no more about the political opinions of the magistrates than we do of the political opinions of doctors. But we all know the actual situation, and it would be uncandid if we did not admit it. There is an enormous preponderance of one political opinion on the Bench in the counties. I cannot accept the suggestion thrown out by the noble Marquess who spoke first that persons of the Conservative party are more likely to administer justice than those of the other Party. Personally I do not think there is any difference between fair-minded men on one side of politics and the other. My feeling is that this preponderance causes a sense of injustice which ought to be redressed. For my part I have no sympathy whatever with the idea of
  478
  appointing as magistrates, as a reward for political services, undeserving persons. I really do wish to see the administration of justice in this country carried out in a way that will secure the affection and the respect of the people at large, and I would not be a party to placing on the Bench a man who was not an honest man and a proper person for such a position.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair].
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsuggested that the words requiring residence within seven miles should be struck out, and that a man should not be disqualified for being a justice of the peace for a county on account of residence outside the county area. What happened, especially in large industrial districts, was that the persons engaged in them who were most qualified to act as magistrates resided elsewhere. In these days of rapid locomotion seven miles was practically no distance at all; it was merely a twenty minutes journey in a motor-car. He therefore hoped, before the Third Reading stage was taken, the Local Government Board would consider a provision in this form— that a person, if otherwise qualified and having a large interest in an industrial centre, should not be disqualified as a justice of peace on account of residence outside the county area. He thought that would be a far more satisfactory provision.
  LORD HERRIESsaid there was some danger of the county bench being swamped by the incursion of gentlemen who did not live in the county. He thought they were quite sufficiently governed by the towns already, without enabling gentlemen resident in the towns to become county magistrates and interfere in the administration of justice in the counties. He agreed that there were circumstances under which it was to the advantage of the public that gentlemen living outside the county should be appointed magistrates, but he was afraid that if the clause were passed in its present form it would open the door too

  479
  widely. There would be the danger of a great many magiatrates being appointed from outside, with the result that the county magistrates would be swamped. He suggested that the clause should read—
  "A person, if otherwise qualified, may tie appointed a justice of the peace for any county, notwithstanding that he does not reside in the county, if he resides within seven miles thereof and if it is for the public interest in the administration of justice that such an appointment should be made."
  THE EARL OF JERSEYhoped the rather vague Amendment suggested by Lord Dartmouth would not be accepted. He was of opinion that those who sat on the local bench should be gentlemen residing close by. They were more likely to attend regularly, and to be in real touch with the neighbourhood. It rested with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord-Lieutenant whether too many magistrates were appointed, and he thought that in this matter both would be guided by what they considered best for the county.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the Amendment suggested by Lord Dartmouth was too vague, and that the clause as it stood would be more useful. The direction to the Lord Chancellor was in the Statute of Henry V., that justices of the peace henceforth to be appointed within the counties of England should be "most sufficient persons dwelling in the same county" That was the old law, and he imagined that it was as binding upon him as it was upon his predecessor in the time of Henry V. The persons to be appointed should be competent, trustworthy, and reliable individuals.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid he did not move his Amendment. He only offered it as a very humble suggestion, and was sorry it had not met with any favour.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHmoved an Amendment stipulating that solicitors, "if otherwise qualified," might be appointed. According to the clause as it stood, a person, if otherwise qualified, might be appointed, but a solicitor could apparently be appointed whether he
  480
  was qualified or not. Those who lived in the counties did not want to have any cuckoos in the home nest, and it seemed to him that this suggestion of dumping down outside solicitors on local benches was not one that would meet with approval. It seemed to him to extend the principal of Free Trade in a manner that was never intended by the originators of that system, and he thought that without treading on anybody's corns in this particular instance they might ask to be allowed to adopt the principle of Protection.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'solicitor' to insert the words 'if otherwise qualified.'"— (The Earl of Dartmouth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdid not understand the clause to mean that solicitors, merely because they were solicitors, could be appointed without any other qualification. He would not enter into the point as to whether or not that was a true construction, for he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment in order to make it quite clear that no such special privilege was intended to be accorded to any particular class.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that probably the reason why the words in the clause were used was that a solicitor was, under certain circumstances, disqualified, and it was proposed to remove that disqualification.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 135.)

  ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE COMMISSION.
  LORD KINNAIRDrose to ask His Majesty's Government—1. If they can explain to the House the cause of the repeated delays in presenting the Report of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline to His Majesty the King, and why it has not been presented before

  481
  Whitsuntide as promised in March in another place? 2. Would the Government endeavour to hasten this Report, as it would be of the greatest value during the Education debate? 3. Does not the prolonged delay involve the Government in considerable additional expense? 4. Could the Government also further the matter by recommending to the Commission the advisability of getting the volumes of evidence or some of them printed off and bound at once, so that there will be no printing delays after the Commission have made their report? The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place to put the Question last week, and I am very sorry if my absence caused any of your Lordships any inconvenience. There was a long list of notices on the Paper, and I thought my Question would not be reached until after five o'clock. When I got down to the House, however, your Lordships had adjourned. I fully recognise the difficulty of this subject and that the amount of evidence given before the Commission was considerable. I feel that those who have given so much time and thought to this matter deserve our best thanks and gratitude. The fact that the Chairman of the Commission was called away on a very important inquiry connected with our Indian Empire may have caused delay; but I have put the Question down in order to allay any feeling in people's minds that there has been considerable delay in this matter; and especially at this juncture, when there is considerable anxiety with reference to the education of the country, it is desirable to have some authoritative statement as to whether the numbers of those clergy who are disobeying the law of the Church and of the land as given by the Low Church Party are correct. The Report, I think, may influence a good many people in judging how far those clergy who do not obey the law ought to be given considerable power under the Education Bill in educating the children in our elementary schools. I should be very sorry if the wording of my Question in any way led to the impression that there had been needless delay in the bringing put of the Report.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I am very glad that the remarks of the noble
  482
  Lord who has just sat down have to a certain extent removed the somewhat unpleasant impression which the wording of his Question as it stands on the Paper was calculated to cause. I certainly did feel that, evidently unintentionally, the noble Lord's Question implied distrust, not to say suspicion of the proceedings of the Commission, which I believe to be entirely without justification. I do not think, from the information in my possession, that there has been any avoidable or unnecessary delay in the presentation of the Report. When we recollect that the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, presided over the Commission, we shall not be likely to believe that he is a man to let the grass grow under his feet. At least I have never formed that conception of his character, and I can certainly say that His Majesty's Government do not feel that there has been any undue delay in the matter.
  When my noble friend opposite, Lord Kinnaird, speaks of a promise given to present the Report before Whitsuntide, he puts the matter very much more strongly than the facts justify. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister gave no promise, but expressed a hope, and all the hopes which one expresses are not to be converted into promises, for life consists very greatly of unrealised hopes. With respect to the date at which the Report will appear, I think it will be published soon enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I will not, however, venture, as a hope has been treated as a promise, to express an opinion on this subject, but will leave it to the noble Viscount opposite, who, no doubt, will speak. As to expense, the cost involved by the difference between the presentation of the Report at the beginning of June and the end of June is infinitesimal. I am told that it is nothing more than the salary of the Secretary, which may be prolonged for a week or two. The question of cost is, therefore, altogether unworthy of being considered. I believe that steps have been taken to carry out the wishes expressed in the fourth inquiry of the noble Lord. Efforts are being made to produce the evidence as quickly as possible, either with or immediately after the publication of the Report. I quite agree that this is highly desirable in a matter of this kind.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords perhaps, as I had the honour of presiding

  483
  over this Commission, I may make a few observations in reply to the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. I appreciate the sentences with which he commenced his observations, but I am bound to say that it is difficult to reconcile them with the terms of his Question. The first paragraph of the Question contains two untrue statements. In the first place, it is not true to say that any promise was given that this Report would be presented before Whitsuntide. All that was ever said was what the Prime Minister was authorised by me, on behalf of the Commission, to say in the House of Commons in February last, † that I had hopes that we might finish the consideration of our Report before Whitsuntide. In the second place, it is not true to say that there have been repeated delays in presenting the Report; not only have there been no repeated delays, but there has been no delay at all.
  I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever served his country upon a Royal Commission. Perhaps his not having done so may excuse the way in which he has referred to those who have given gratuitous services in a difficult and most unpleasant duty. Personally, having myself given services of this kind on many occasions, I may say that I have never known a Commission which worked harder, with a greater desire to bring its labours to as early a termination as was consistent with their proper performance, than this Commission. We commenced our inquiry a little more than two years ago. The previous Ritual Commission took nearly five years in considering the matters referred to them. This Commission was composed of fourteen members, including three members of the Episcopal Bench, three Judges, and three Members of Parliament; and the remaining members were all men busily engaged in their respective avocations. I venture to say there was not one member on that Commission who could not be called a very busy man. In those two years we sat on something like 120 days—long sittings on each day; and of course many of us devoted a great deal of time besides that to the work of the Commission. That is what we did.
  Now it is suggested that there have been delays. I repudiate that suggestion
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 519.
  484
  as strongly as it is possible for me to do so, consistent with language proper to be used in your Lordships' House. But that is not all. The noble Lord has insinuated in the terms of his Question that the delay has been needless, and that it has been done purposely in order to prevent the country from obtaining in the debates on the Education Bill whatever information might be gathered from the Report and evidence of this Commission. I do not know whether the noble Lord really means to make that insinuation.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I did not mean to make the insinuation.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I very gladly accept that denial. But such an insinuation has been made in the gutter Press, and I can only say it is an absolute lie. I can use no other term to characterise it. I do not know—and I do not very much care—what effect anything in the Report or the evidence given before the Commission may have in the debates on the Education Bill. But this I do know, speaking for myself, that nothing could be more unjust, or more illogical than to appreciate the denominational teaching generally given in Church of England schools by the misguided action of a certain number of clergymen, very few in number as compared with the total body of the clergy of the Church.
  With regard to our proceedings, I am thankful to say they have been brought to a termination. Our Report is, I am afraid, rather a large volume. It has been unanimously agreed to, without reservation or dissent on the part of a single Commissioner. It has been signed by all the Commissioners but one—the Lord Chief Justice, who was unable to sign it at our meeting because he was on Circuit in Somersetshire. His signature will be obtained either to-day or to-morrow. The Report will, I believe, be presented to the Home Office on Monday for submission to His Majesty, and, of course, it will rest with the Home Office how soon it is circulated. The evidence, the index, and the rest of the Papers will be presented, I believe, in a fortnight from Monday next, and will be available—of course by the permission of the printers,

  485
  who are rather difficult to deal with in these matters—as soon as may be possible to the public after that date. I hope I have said enough to show that we, the members of this Royal Commission, have done our work to the best of our ability, and that we do not deserve the gross insinuation contained in the Question of the noble Lord.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time, I wish to say a few words upon it. The proposal herein contained will go down to another place fortified by the opinion of perhaps the strongest, man who could be summoned in support of it. I refer to the late Sir Robert Herbert, who was for so long Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Seven years ago I made the proposal to Sir Robert Herbert which is contained in this Bill, and suggested that he should use the machinery of the Empire League to obtain an opinion in favour of the establishment of a Reserve in the Colonies. Sir Robert Herbert took up the question with his usual eagerness, and promised me that the Committee of the Empire League should inquire into the details. I will read his letter—
  "Your suggestion as to the enrollment of men in the Colonies in the Imperial Reserve is, I think, sound and practical, and I will bring it before the Council of the Empire League. After the present South African war is over it might be possible to settle a number of time expired soldiers on the land, giving them grants on condition of their being ready for service anywhere."
  I am glad that this proposal, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, is about to be carried out.
  But this Bill does various other things which are equally useful. In the first place, it enables the Government to pay men of the Reserve in the Colonies. During my time at the War Office we were not allowed even to pay pensions outside the United Kingdom. That difficulty is now removed. The second great advantage is that we shall be en-
  486
  abled to enlist men direct into the-Reserve. I understand that there are no less than 3,000 men in India who are now in the Reserve, but who are not under any control whatever. These men will be under the same control in the future as Reserve men at home, and will be a strong addition to the Reserve Forces of this country.
  Lastly, there is a provision to give greater elasticity to the various branches of the Reserve. At present it is impossible for a man in the Cavalry Reserve to serve in the Remount Department or to join the Mounted Infantry, for this reason, that both of those services are regarded as dismounted services. It is of the greatest possible importance that these men should be so employed. Many of them are incapable any longer of serving in the Cavalry and would be of the greatest possible service in the Remount Department and in other ways. It may be said that it is a difficult thing to make a cavalryman into an infantryman and vice versa, but we may be sure that the authorities will not use this power unless it is of service to them. This Bill will also give us a much larger Reserve in the Colonies than we have had before. It will enable us to use our Colonial Army in a much more effective way, and it will create a greater connection between the Colonies and the mother country. Above all, the Bill will enable the Colonies in time of stress to come forward with a much larger Reserve to aid our forces in matters which may be of equal importance to them as to ourselves. I hope the Bill will go down to the other House fortified by the sanction of the Government and that they will use all their efforts to secure its passage into law this session.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL OF PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I should like to express a few words of thanks to my noble friend for what he has said on behalf of this Bill. I think I ought also to say, in fairness, that the reason the Bill has made such satisfactory progress in your Lordships' House is not only the merit of the Bill itself, but also the fact that it is in almost all respects the same Bill as was introduced by the late Government and which your Lordships passed through all its stages. It was one of the Bills which, owing to pressure

  487
  of business at the end of last session, was massacred in the House of Commons. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading. It will then go down to the House of Commons with the necessary Amendments that have been introduced, and I trust there is every prospect of the Bill being passed into law this Session.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed. with the Amendments, and sent to the Commons.

  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade in this House (the Earl of Granard) I beg to move that the Earl Beauchamp be added to the Select Committee. I am given to understand that owing to the regrettable absence, through indisposition, of Lord Balfour of Burleigh it has been found necessary to obtain the services of another Member.
  Moved, "That the Earl Beauchamp be added to the Select Committee."—(Lord Denman).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SERVIA.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to make a statement with reference to the renewal of diplomatic relations with Servia. When the barbarous murder of the late King and Queen of Servia took place, and when the perpetrators of that crime were not only not punished, but actually rewarded by high positions and influential commands, Lord Lansdowne, who was at that time Foreign Minister, withdrew our representative at Belgrade, and since that period diplomatic relations between the two countries have been suspended. This action of His Majesty's Government was not only unanimously approved here, but it produced an excellent effect, throughout the Continent, possibly owing to the fact that some Powers entered into a kind of ignoble competition as to which should be first to recognise the regicide Government. I think you could have no better evidence of the wisdom of the action of his
  488
  Majesty's Government than that the Servian Government has been endeavouring ever since to resume diplomatic relations with this country.
  The attitude of the late Government was something of this kind. They intimated that so long as the Servian Government identified itself with the regicides they preferred to have no communications with it. No demand was made that any punishment should be inflicted upon them, and I venture to think this was a wise reservation, because if we had endeavoured to insist upon punishment these men would probably have been converted into patriotic martyrs. I think it was pointed out that His Majesty's Government, naturally regarding Servia as an independent country which it was not our business to interfere with, thought it ought to recognise its own duty in the matter, and that we should not maintain any official relations with it until the Servian Government had done what was obviously fitting and right under the circumstances.
  The Servian Government continued to make inquiries as to what our wishes were in the matter, and on April 11th of this year Sir Edward Grey, departing in a very slight measure from the attitude previously adopted by this country, announced in another place that until the regicide officers were removed the question of reopening diplomatic relations with Servia could not be discussed. This clearly meant the retirement of eighteen persons who were prominently associated with the crime in question, and who, I believe, had actually personally taken part in the murder. The then Servian Prime Minister submitted to the king a decree proposing to place eleven of the principal regicides on the retired list. The monarch, however, preferred rather than grant this demand to accept the resignation of the Prime Minister and his Government. Thereupon appeared on the scene another Government, and the new Prime Minister appears to have also approached the Foreign Office through intermediaries, who, I understand, were Italians.
  Unofficial inquiries were made with the new of ascertaining how many retirements would satisfy our views, and somehow or other it was conveyed that if

  489
  five of the regicides were retired, and retired in such a manner as to indicate clearly that the Servian Government disapproved of their crime and dissociated itself entirely from them, nominal diplomatic relations with Servia would be resumed. It was clearly intended that the Servian Government should distinctly dissociate itself from these men, and that they should be retired under such circumstances as one might reasonably expect. What actually happened was this. I have here the translation of a decree which appeared in the official Servian organ of May 30th. The decree runs as follows:—
  "We, Peter, on the proposal of our Minister of War, having heard and taken cognisance of the decision of the Council of Ministers, do resolve that"
  and here follow the names of five officers—
  "are, at their own request, and on the ground of Section 22 of the law on the Army, placed in a state of peace."
  The Section 22 referred to in the decree is, I understand, a provision by which officers who have rendered distinguished service to their country are allowed to retire on pensions amounting to the full salary which they are at the time receiving. The decree proceeds to state that out of consideration for their good will, by which they have placed their positions at the disposal of the Government, their pensions shall amount to their full salary.
  What has actually happened, therefore, is that five of the principal members of the regicide party, so far from having been retired in what I may venture to term a somewhat ignominious manner, are allowed to retain their present salaries as full pensions and to leave the Army without a stain on their characters. I am also informed that in order that there should be no unpleasantness the King has recently appointed two members of the regicide party to the position of aide-de-camp, in which capacity they no doubt would come occasionally in communication with our representative when he goes there.
  Speaking for myself, I should like to see diplomatic relations reestablished with this country. We have no quarrel with the Servian nation, and it is, so far as I am aware, just as much entitled to our respect as any other nation; but I must say I do resent a state of things
  490
  which appears to have brought about a resumption of diplomatic relations under somewhat unsatisfactory circumstances. If what I have stated is correct, and I have every reason to believe that it is, then I venture to think this country has not been overwell treated in this matter. I observe that an English Minister ha? been appointed, but has not yet been gazetted. I venture to ask whether it would not be well, before this gentleman actually proceeds to his post, to suggest to the Servian Government that it should show rather better evidence of goodwill in this affair than it has demonstrated up to the present time.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I think it is natural that my noble friend, who possesses great knowledge of the affairs of the East of Europe, should call attention to the facts connected with this incident. Undoubtedly the situation that has existed in Servia since the great crime committed in June, 1903, has been; a very difficult one. It was the bounden duty of the Government of this country to mark its sense of the terrible character of the events which took place in the Palace of Belgrade. We had strict precedent for our action in suspending diplomatic relations with Servia. Personally I was mixed up many years ago in the complicated negotiations which ended the suspension of relations between this country and Mexico consequent on: the death of the Emperor Maximilian, when nearly all the Great European Powers suspended relations with Mexico for a longer or a shorter time, and we were almost the last, if not the last, to renew relations. Therefore, had the Government chosen in the case of Servia, which was an infinitely graver matter than that of Mexico, we would not have been without argument to show that we could take up a still' stronger attitude.
  On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that if the duty of a country like ours is to make a clear assertion of the dignity of the public right of Europe—if I may use the expression—it has also to bear in mind that the suspension of diplomatic relations with any country is always a matter which bears rather hardly on our own "nationals" We ought always to

  491
  be careful that, while punishing other countries, we may not possibly be inflicting considerable injury on our own subjects. As to Mexico, for example, it was forcibly borne in upon my mind, especially through communications in the House of Commons, where I at that time sat, how very serious a condition of things the suspension of diplomatic relations was for British subjects in Mexico.
  The Secretary of State thought it was his first duty in the case of Servia to see that there should be some clear acknowledgment on the part of the Servian Government by some public act that the crime of June, 1903, was not to be passed over without notice. It is impossible on the other hand in a matter of this kind for a foreign Government like ours to interfere in details; but the broad fact is that, out of deference to the sole and unsupported action of this country, the Servian officers have been removed from the active list, and an assurance has been given that they will not be employed again. I believe it will be felt that by our action this country has sufficiently vindicated what we consider to be the public law affecting the case. One point has weighed with His Majesty's Government. Servia is in a very unsatisfactory condition, and the presence of a British Minister may in itself be the means of helping towards the restoration of a more satisfactory condition of affairs. The: people of Servia may thus be reminded by the presence of our Minister that there is a country in Europe where liberty and order can exist together, and perhaps in time they may be able to realise and to follow our example.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure your Lordships will have heard with satisfaction the statement which has just been made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs. I do not think that any of your Lordships could have been in any doubt as to the opinion of the Government, or of any British Government, in respect to the odious crime which was committed a few years ago in Servia. But it is a matter of satisfaction that, not only in the House of Commons, but here, there should be a formal pronouncement by the Foreign Office to the effect that the present advisers of the Crown are entirely in
  492
  accord with the policy which we pursued in this matter when we held their places.
  It was impossible for a British Government to continue in a relationship of courtesy with a Government which had been guilty of so heinous a crime, for if we had done so it would have appeared to Servia and to the world that Great Britain condoned the crime. Accordingly we took the only step which was open to us to take. My noble friend behind me who raised the question has complained that the Servian Government have not made full reparation, that they have been not a little grudging in acknowledging the heinousness of the error they committed, and that His Majesty's present Government have been too kind in overlooking their fault. I agree with my noble friend that the behaviour of the Servian Government from the beginning to the end of this unhappy business has been in the highest degree deplorable and shocking, and it is only of a piece with their previous conduct that their reparation should have been of so hesitating and grudging a character.
  I also think that my noble friend opposite, the Under-Secretary, was justified in saying that we have not only Servian interests to consider in this matter but British interests as well, and it is of the highest importance, from a British point of view, that the ordinary means of diplomatic intercourse should be resumed as soon as reasonably may be. I gather from my noble friend behind me that he entirely concurs in that view. With regard to the reparation, that is not a matter with which we need concern ourselves very greatly. There remains upon record the fact that in consequence of the action of the British Government, and that action alone, public justice in Europe has been vindicated, and the Servian Government have been compelled by our action publicly to admit that a great crime was committed, and that those who were principally responsible for that crime are no longer worthy of the confidence of their country and of the King who reigns over it. That is a great achievement upon which the Government of this country are to be congratulated.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of saying that, if this

  493
  question is a very difficult one, it has clearly been solved very much to the advantage of the Servian Government; and if any people have a special right to be satisfied with the arrangement arrived at it is the regicide officers themselves, who are no worse off for what has happened, but, if anything, are in a better position.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six O'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.